Lawrence v. Thom
Wyoming Supreme Court
EeRok to the District Court, Johnson County, Hon. Joseph L. Stotts, Judge. Action upon a promissory note against the sureties thereon. The sureties defended on the ground that the note had been extended without their consent, and judgment was rendered in their favor. The plaintiff brought error. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. The burden of proof is upon the defendants.
Read the full summary
EeRok to the District Court, Johnson County, Hon. Joseph L. Stotts, Judge. Action upon a promissory note against the sureties thereon. The sureties defended on the ground that the note had been extended without their consent, and judgment was rendered in their favor. The plaintiff brought error. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. The burden of proof is upon the defendants. In order to release the sureties the extension of time must be given without the consent of the sureties for a definite time and upon a valuable consideration. Those conditions are not shown in this case. Where the…
1Opinion of the Court
Corn, Justice.
This was a suit upon a promissory note brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants C. H. Burritt, E. B. Mather, and W. J. Thom. The defendants, Mather and Thom, answered admitting the execution of the note, but alleging that they signed it as sureties for the defendant Burritt, and that after it became due the plaintiff, without their knowledge or consent, granted an extension of payment for the term of six months in consideration of a premium over and above the interest mentioned therein; and that the plaintiff afterward repeatedly extended the time of payment upon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Scott v. SaffoldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
- Uniontown Bank v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Heldreth v. MooreSupreme Court of Virginia · 1929
- Lange v. ValenciaWyoming Supreme Court · 1975