Running v. Widdes

Widdes’ first argument contends Eunning is not a proper party or a creditor under sec. 242.01 (3), Stats., 1 because when he purchased the judgment from the bank the judgment was extinguished. We think not. There was no extinguishment of the judgment debt because Eunning as guarantor purchased the judgment against his codefendant Widdes, the principal maker. A guarantor is entitled to recovery against the principal and he may proceed by way of purchase and assignment of the principal debt as well as by payment of the judgment and by subrogation. Nor do we think Eunning is disqualified for…