Pipkin v. . Bond
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Chowan County, at the Spring Term, 1847, by consent of parties. William McNider was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $932 80, and to secure it he gave a bond and procured the plaintiff, Pipkin, to join in it, as his surety. After the bond had been sometime due, Pipkin, understanding that McNider was somewhat embarrassed, informed the defendant of it, and requested him to put the bond in suit, and collect the debt.
Read the full summary
Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Chowan County, at the Spring Term, 1847, by consent of parties. William McNider was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $932 80, and to secure it he gave a bond and procured the plaintiff, Pipkin, to join in it, as his surety. After the bond had been sometime due, Pipkin, understanding that McNider was somewhat embarrassed, informed the defendant of it, and requested him to put the bond in suit, and collect the debt. The defendant accordingly brought a suit against McNider and Pipkin in the County Court of Chowan, where McNider lived; and after…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
The law, affecting this controversy, has been so often discussed in modern times, that it has come to be well understood, we believe. A creditor is not bound to a surety for active diligence against the principal ; for it is the contract of the surety, that the principal shall pay the debt, and it is his business to see that' he does. Therefore, forbearance merely, the omission to sue, or, after suit, to take judgment, or to sue out execution, although it may be from the wish not to distress the principal, and the consequence of communications from him, and although the creditor may not…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Revell v. Thrash.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Bank of Fayetteville v. NimocksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- Short v. ShannonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Bell v. . HowertonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892