Triplet v. Randolph
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from, the Chariton Circuit Court. — Hon. G. 3). Burgess, Judge. (1) Part of the contract of the sureties on a promissory note is the statutory right to notify the payee to sue to the principal, after an action has accrued, and, if suit is not brought within thirty days after notice, to be exonerated from liability. The right of the payee, in this regard, is to have this notice in writing.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the Chariton Circuit Court. — Hon. G. 3). Burgess, Judge. (1) Part of the contract of the sureties on a promissory note is the statutory right to notify the payee to sue to the principal, after an action has accrued, and, if suit is not brought within thirty days after notice, to be exonerated from liability. The right of the payee, in this regard, is to have this notice in writing. R. S., secs. 8343, 8344. It is not contended that a verbal notice to sue, with nothing more, is sufficient. It is contended that a payee may waive his right to notice in writing. Bigelow on Estoppel […
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
Randolph and Riddle were sureties on a promissory note given to plaintiff by McClelland. Plaintiff has sued all three. The sureties filed an answer which was not considered by the court as a defense, and judgment was rendered on the pleading for plaintiff. The sureties appeal.
The answer is subject to criticism for lack of clearness, but it sets up matter which may be divided into, two defenses, first, that plaintiff by his conduct had waived the statutory thirty days’ written notice to sue ; and, second, that plaintiff had caused them to forego securing themselves at a time when they could…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Driskell v. MateerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1861
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bank of Neelyville v. LeeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Bank of Neelyville v. LeeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1917
- First National Bank v. LillardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894