Legal Opinion

Skofield v. Haley

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 15, 1842PublishedCited by 1 opinion

. Exceptions from the Eastern District Court, Chandler J, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit upon a guaranty by the defendant of an order by one Nelson on Brooks & Waldron, by them accepted payable in boards, in favor of one N. H. Mooney, for $41,55. The consideration for the defendant’s guaranty was his being discharged by the plaintiff from his liability for the balance of $50 due on note of $100, by Haley & Mooney, to the plaintiff, which balance it belonged…

Read the full summary

. Exceptions from the Eastern District Court, Chandler J, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit upon a guaranty by the defendant of an order by one Nelson on Brooks & Waldron, by them accepted payable in boards, in favor of one N. H. Mooney, for $41,55. The consideration for the defendant’s guaranty was his being discharged by the plaintiff from his liability for the balance of $50 due on note of $100, by Haley & Mooney, to the plaintiff, which balance it belonged exclusively to the defendant to pay. The guaranty was made several days before the order became due, and was in these words —…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Whitman C. J.

— Cases of guaranty are scarcely to be assimilated to those of indorsers, under the mercantile law of bills of exchange and promissory notes, in any of the rules, as to demand and notice. Clark & al. v. Burditt, 2 Hall, 197; 1 Story’s R. 22; Lee v. Dick, 10 Peters, 482. A guarantor *167may be, and generally is, liable without either ; and is, in many respects, in the condition of a surety, obligating himself jointly and severally with the principal. If the holder of the obligation lays by, after the debt becomes due, for a great length of time,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. DouglassSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
  2. Oakley v. BoormanNew York Supreme Court · 1839
  3. Clark v. BurdettThe Superior Court of New York City · 1829

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Friend v. Smith Gin Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1894

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API