Owen v. Udall
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal and error from the district court of Lancaster county. Heard below before Field, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. A rule never to be lost sight of in determining the liability of a surety or guarantor is that he is a favorite of the law, and has a right to stand upon the strict terms of his obligation when such terms are ascertained. This is a rule universally recognized by the courts, and is applicable to every variety of circumstances.
Read the full summary
Appeal and error from the district court of Lancaster county. Heard below before Field, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. A rule never to be lost sight of in determining the liability of a surety or guarantor is that he is a favorite of the law, and has a right to stand upon the strict terms of his obligation when such terms are ascertained. This is a rule universally recognized by the courts, and is applicable to every variety of circumstances. (Brandt, Suretyship & Guaranty, sec. 79; Law v. East India Co., 4 Yes. [Eng.], 824; Lang v. Pike, 27 O. St., 498; Kingsbury v. West-fall, 61 N.…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
1. The appellee Samuel G. Owen entered into a written contract with the appellant Delos A. Udall, whereby Udall agreed to erect a certain building for Owen in consideration of the payment to- him of $6,200. In this contract Udall was principal, and the defendants McClay, McCall, and the Chicago Lumber .Company were sureties. Collateral to this contract a bond was given for the proper performance of its undertakings, which bond was also signed by Udall as principal, and the same parties as sureties who signed the original contract in that capacity. No complaint is made as to the proper…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Porter v. CurryIllinois Supreme Court · 1869
- Mann v. Ætna InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hart v. Mead Investment Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1897