Smith v. Lincoln
Supreme Court of Vermont
Heard by the court on an agreed statement, at the September Term, 1881, Yeazey, J., presiding. An action had been brought and judgment rendered against the plaintiff in this case for the costs in the suit in -which he had recognized; and this action is brought to recover what he has paid, as such surety on the writ, for the defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Heard by the court on an agreed statement, at the September Term, 1881, Yeazey, J., presiding. An action had been brought and judgment rendered against the plaintiff in this case for the costs in the suit in -which he had recognized; and this action is brought to recover what he has paid, as such surety on the writ, for the defendant. Judgment for the plaintiff. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The judgment recovered against this plaintiff in consequence of his suretyship, is not conclusive of his right to recover of the defendant. A judgment is not, as a general rule,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rowell, J.
We do not decide when debt on a recognizance in a writ is barred by the Statute of Limitations. The decision of that question is not necessary to a determination of this case, for if the action against the plaintiff on his recognizance was barred, we hold that he was not bound to avail himself of that defence. Plaintiff entered into his recognizance at defendant’s request, and his payment thereof must be taken to have been equally at defendant’s request, and for his benefit. Of what avail to defendant would plaintiff’s defence of the statute…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harrison v. Trustees of Phillips AcademyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Ellicott v. NicholsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1848
- Jackson v. JacksonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hartford v. School District No. 13Supreme Court of Vermont · 1896