Smith v. Estate of Steele
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal from the decision of commissioners, disallowing a claim of the plaintiff, against the estate of Elizur Steele, for the amount of a note bearing date the 19th day of April, 1841, for five hundred and twenty-eight dollars and ten cents, and given by said Steele, in his lifetime, and one James Steele, to the plaintiff, and made payable to him or order, in one year from date, with interest annually. The declaration filed, was in the common form.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the decision of commissioners, disallowing a claim of the plaintiff, against the estate of Elizur Steele, for the amount of a note bearing date the 19th day of April, 1841, for five hundred and twenty-eight dollars and ten cents, and given by said Steele, in his lifetime, and one James Steele, to the plaintiff, and made payable to him or order, in one year from date, with interest annually. The declaration filed, was in the common form. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of special matter in defence. On the trial by jury, the plaintiff offered in evidence,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, Ch. J.
The only question made in the present case . is, how far a surety, who has ample collateral security from the principal, is precluded from taking advantage of any enlargement of the time of payment, by arrangement between the creditor and the principal, this property having subsequently, by consent of the principal, gone to pay other of his debts.
This case states, that the first contract for the enlargement of time was made in January, 1843, the note falling due in April following, which was for one year, and that this agreement was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moore v. PaineNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Chilton v. Robbins, Paynter & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1842
3Cited by3 opinions
- Home National Bank v. Estate of WatermanIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Rittenhouse v. KempIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
- Ætna Indemnity Co. v. Auto-Traction Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1906