Randall v. Sacket
New York Supreme Court
Motion, under section 758 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for continuance of action against executors of defendant Sackett.
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
(1.) The contract was that of sureties and it was joint. Upon the death, of one of such sureties his estate, by the law existing at the time of entering into the obligation, was absolutely discharged ( Wood agt. Fiske, 63 N. Y., 245). This rule was engrafted upon the contract precisely as though it had been written therein (McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. [ U. S.], 612; Ogden agt. Saunders, 12 Wheat., 213), and it was not in the power of the legislature to extend the obligation (Same cases).
This was expressly held by Mr. justice Nelson in Fielden agt. Lahens (6 Blatch., 524), a case very similar…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ogden v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Palmer v. Conly & JohnsonNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Berley v. RampacherThe Superior Court of New York City · 1856
- Wood v. . FiskNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Trustees of Hobart College v. FitzhughNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.