Moore v. Isley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
In the year 1817. the plaintiff and the defendant, together with Daniel Harvey and "William Dickey, became jointly and severally the sureties of one James B. Dickey, for the faithful discharge of his duties as guardian to the infant children of Henry Shut!., deceased; and, as such sureties, executed with their principal, the ordinary bonds required by law to be given by guardians.
Read the full summary
In the year 1817. the plaintiff and the defendant, together with Daniel Harvey and "William Dickey, became jointly and severally the sureties of one James B. Dickey, for the faithful discharge of his duties as guardian to the infant children of Henry Shut!., deceased; and, as such sureties, executed with their principal, the ordinary bonds required by law to be given by guardians. The said James, mismanaged and neglected the estates of his wards — was removed from his guardianship — became insolvent, and left the State. In the year 1824, suits were instituted upon these bonds against all the…
1Opinion of the Court
Courts of equity interfere between cosureties upon a principle of natural justice. If several persons have become bound as sureties for the same principal, whether these obligations be testified by one and the same instrument or by (374) different instruments, and whether the fact of such common engagement be or be not known to the respective sureties, if by the default of the principal a loss must be sustained by some of the sureties, it is the obvious dictate of justice that it should be divided equally among all. The interest, if any, was common — so should be the burden; the hazard was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Campau v. Detroit Driving ClubMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
- Smith v. Richards.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901