Field v. Cutler
New York Supreme Court
The action was brought upon a promissory note, dated October 3, 1865, for §1,000, payable sixty days after date, with interest, signed by William Comstock, Jr., and the defendant. Issue being joined, the case was referred, and tried before a referee.
Read the full summary
The action was brought upon a promissory note, dated October 3, 1865, for §1,000, payable sixty days after date, with interest, signed by William Comstock, Jr., and the defendant. Issue being joined, the case was referred, and tried before a referee. It appeared upon the trial that, on and previous to October 3, 1865, William Comstock, Jr., had been, and then was, a merchant in Laurens, Otsego county, and that he and the defendant had been and were partners in the droving business. On October 3d the plaintiff loaned to Comstock $1,000, on his representation that he and the defendant wanted…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Miller, P. J.
The defence inteiposcd to the plaintiff’s demand is put upon the ground that the defendant was merely a surety on the note, and that the plaintiff failed to prosecute the principal after notice; and that, by means of the delay, the defendant was exonerated from liability. ■It is claimed that the defendant’s position was similar to that of a guarantor of collection, which obligated the plaintiff to tiommence a suit'against the debtor within a reasonable time after the debt became due, and that, upon a failure to do so, the surety is released. The defendant relies upon…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- King v. BaldwinCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1819
- Pain v. PackardNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Schroeppell v. . ShawNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Remsen v. . BeekmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Fulton v. MatthewsNew York Supreme Court · 1818
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Marsh v. DunckelNew York Supreme Court · 1881
- Steinbock v. EvansThe Superior Court of New York City · 1888