Johnston v. Thompson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Armstrong county. This was an action of debt on a note by Moses Thompson against Andrew Hickencooper, John Cox, William Cox and John Johnston, and the writ was served upon Johnston alone. The defence by Johnston was, that he was a surety, and that such indulgencehadbeen extended to Hickencooper the principal as released him from liability.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Armstrong county. This was an action of debt on a note by Moses Thompson against Andrew Hickencooper, John Cox, William Cox and John Johnston, and the writ was served upon Johnston alone. The defence by Johnston was, that he was a surety, and that such indulgencehadbeen extended to Hickencooper the principal as released him from liability. The evidence to support this defence was the following deposition of Andrew Hickencooper, who had been made a competent witness by a release. Andrew Hickencooper deposed as follows: “in the spring of 1824, John Cox, William Cox…
1Per curiam
—Giving the evidence its greatest effect, it showed but a willingness to indulge, which, even had it been an explicit promise, would not have restrained the plaintiff, for defect of consideration. In that sense he had given time, but in that sense he had not disabled himself. Had he even been diverted from immediate pursuit by payment of interest and a promise of punctuality in future, it would not have affected him ; nor would a promise, on such consideration, to wait for a specified period, have been a suspension of his right of action. The fact that the witness, who was a principal…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Campbell v. FloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Ashton v. SprouleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
- Henry & Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- Michelin Tire Co. v. AkersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1927
- Alldred's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.