Labeaume ex rel. Chouteau v. Sweeney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The court below erred in assuming that a stranger, who indemnifies the surety in a bond, cannot, as assignee of the surety, recover against the principal. Payment of the debt by Chouteau did not extinguish the liability of Sweeney on the bond, and Chouteau, by the assignment, succeeded to all the rights of Labeaume against him. 2 Greenl.
Read the full summary
Jlppeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The court below erred in assuming that a stranger, who indemnifies the surety in a bond, cannot, as assignee of the surety, recover against the principal. Payment of the debt by Chouteau did not extinguish the liability of Sweeney on the bond, and Chouteau, by the assignment, succeeded to all the rights of Labeaume against him. 2 Greenl. It. 341. 8 J. R. 249. 1 Wash. 0. C. R. 278. 3 Met. 169. 2 Barr, 273. A security taking indemnity may, if obliged to pay the debt, maintain an action on the implied promise against the principal. 4 Pick. 444. A…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was an action of assumpsit by attachment begun in the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, by the appellant against the respondent, in which there was a judgment for the respondent. It appears that a suit by' attachment was instituted against Henry L. Kinney.' The process in this action was levied on a steamboat called the Frontier. In order to release the boat from the attachment, Hugh J. Sweeney, the respondent, as principal, and Theodore.Labeaume, as his security, entered into the usual bond to the sheriff. The boat not having been delivered pursuant to the condition of the bond, suit was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- International Bank v. NaughtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Simpson v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1917