Day v. Ramey & Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Putnam County. I. Wherever by the act or procurement of the creditor-the property of the principal debtor is permitted to escape to such an extent that the surety is deprived of his means of reimbursing himself from said property, to that extent is lie estopped from collecting the debt from the surety.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Putnam County. I. Wherever by the act or procurement of the creditor-the property of the principal debtor is permitted to escape to such an extent that the surety is deprived of his means of reimbursing himself from said property, to that extent is lie estopped from collecting the debt from the surety. Dixon and Hawke v. Diving's Adm'r, 3 Ohio, 280; Cass v. Adams, Id., 223, 224; Ford v. Commissioners, 7 Ohio, 2cl pt., 492, (overruling 4 Ohio, 379.) II. And this, notwithstanding the surety has omitted to have himself certified under the statute as surety when the…
1Opinion of the CourtDickman, J.
Ramey & Company, the defendants in error, in September, 1877, recovered judgment upon default in the court of common pleas of Putnam county, against Oliver Day and Hiram Day the plaintiff in error, on a promissory note by them jointly signed, and made to one N. W. Ogan, by whom it was sold and transferred to the defendants in error. On the 7th of March, 1879, an execution was issued on the judgment, and on the same day was levied on the real estate of Hiram Day, described in the petition of the plaintiff below. The land levied upon being included in a mortgage to the Michigan Mutual Life…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hubbell v. CarpenterNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- La Farge v. . Herter and DillenbeckNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Mulford v. EstudilloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863