Stubbins v. Mitchell
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 85 — CONTRIBUTION— APPEAL FROM WARRE' 01.1 UIT COURT. 1. A co-suroty who has executed his individual note in discharge of the common obligation, and has afterward received and accepted his note as a present from the creditor, can not demand contribution from his co-surety. 2. It is well settled that contribution is founded not upon contract, but upon principles of equity. 3. Not only has appellee lost nothing, but he is actually the gainer by reason of his suretyship to…
Read the full summary
Case 85 — CONTRIBUTION— APPEAL FROM WARRE' 01.1 UIT COURT. 1. A co-suroty who has executed his individual note in discharge of the common obligation, and has afterward received and accepted his note as a present from the creditor, can not demand contribution from his co-surety. 2. It is well settled that contribution is founded not upon contract, but upon principles of equity. 3. Not only has appellee lost nothing, but he is actually the gainer by reason of his suretyship to the extent of $1,600, which he has already ■ recovered from his principal. (Pomeroy’s Eq., sections 411, 1448; 'Story’s…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
In 1874, Mary Stubbins, as principal, and appellant and appellee sureties, gave to Robinson their promissory note for $1,824.20, upon which, in 1875, he recovered a judgment which the defendants replevied in the office, W. H. Payne being their surety in the bond, but afterward released by operation of law.
February 23, 1876, in consideration of $100 paid, and his promissory note for the balance then due on the replevin bond payable one day after date, Robin- • son, in writing indorsed thereon, assigned the replevin bond to appellee, Mitchell, for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Robertson v. MaxceyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1838
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wilson v. Hite'sCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Greene v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897