Gardner v. Van Norstrand
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Jefferson County. This was an action by tbe assignee of a promissory note against one of tbe makers, wbo signed tbe same as surety. The defense set up in tbe' answer will appear from tbe opinion of tbe court.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Jefferson County. This was an action by tbe assignee of a promissory note against one of tbe makers, wbo signed tbe same as surety. The defense set up in tbe' answer will appear from tbe opinion of tbe court. Verdict and judgment for tbe defendant. 1. A contract to give time to tbe respondent would not discharge him. 2. Tbe agreements set up in tbe answer were void; tbe first, for want of a consideration — interest then due not being a sufficient consideration (Jenkins vs. Glarh, 7 Ohio, 72; The Farmers' Fanlc of Canton vs. Reynolds, 13 id., 84; McCann vs.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Gole, J.
There can be no doubt about tbe correctness of tbe rule of law, that if a creditor does any act injurious to tbe surety, or inconsistent with bis rights, or omits to do any act when requested by tbe surety, which bis duty enjoins him to do, and tbe omission proves injurious to tbe surety, in all such cases tbe surety will be discharged. This principle is elementary, and is not controverted by counsel on either side. But tbe whole contest grows out of tbe application of that general principle to tbe facts disclosed in tbe answer and proven on.tbe trial. Tbe answer states,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Harris v. NewellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Pratt-Gilbert Co. v. RenaudArizona Supreme Court · 1923
- Lowe v. ReddanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- In re LevinsonDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1927
- Palmer v. HawesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.