Stowell v. Goodenow & Rounds
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit, on a promissory note made to the plaintiff by Goodenow as principal, and by Rounds, as surety, payable at a specified day. Goodenow was defaulted. Rounds defended, and insisted that he was exonerated by means of a contract for delay, made after the pay-day, for value, by the plaintiff with the principal, without the knowledge of the surety.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note made to the plaintiff by Goodenow as principal, and by Rounds, as surety, payable at a specified day. Goodenow was defaulted. Rounds defended, and insisted that he was exonerated by means of a contract for delay, made after the pay-day, for value, by the plaintiff with the principal, without the knowledge of the surety. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, had, after the pay-day, stipulated with the principal to give further time of payment. Against the plaintiff’s objection, Rounds was permitted to prove, and did…
1Opinion of the Court
Shepley, G. J.
The question presented for the determination of the jury was, whether a contract had been made between the plaintiff and Goodenow for delay of payment for a stipulated time and for a valuable consideration. That question is not presented for the consideration of the court by this bill of exceptions.
The first cause of complaint presented is, that testimony was received to prove, that Goodenow was reputed to be solvent during the years 1844 and 1845, and that he afterward became insolvent.
Such testimony could not affect the rights of the parties, and its admission might have…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tuohy v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Crane Co. v. James McHugh Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
- Maulitz v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931