State Bank v. Fowler
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. IIulrert F. Fairchild, Chancellor. Pike has admitted his liability in his answer, and why then should not the amount be decreed against him? The idea of the chancellor appears to be that Pike is a surety; that it is a hard case on him as such, and that the Bank has been guilty of negligence. Now as to Pike being principal or surety, it cannot possibly make any difference in his liability that-we can perceive.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. IIulrert F. Fairchild, Chancellor. Pike has admitted his liability in his answer, and why then should not the amount be decreed against him? The idea of the chancellor appears to be that Pike is a surety; that it is a hard case on him as such, and that the Bank has been guilty of negligence. Now as to Pike being principal or surety, it cannot possibly make any difference in his liability that-we can perceive. As far as the Bank is concerned, they are both principals, though as to each other the relation of principal and surety does exist. We claim,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hon. Harris Flan agin, Special Judge,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellant brought her bill in chancery on the 17th day of October, 1854, and which bill was lost and a new bill was substituted, which charges:
That on the 16th November, 1846, the appellant recovered against the defendants, Fowler and Pike and Thomas W. Newton, deceased, $4,850, together with ten per cent, interest from the 7th day of July, 1844, and costs. The debt was the personal debt of Fowler, and Pike and Newton were his securities. On the 28th day of June, 1853, a writ of scire facias was issued, and on the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lidderdale v. RobinsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Virginia · 1824
- Shaw v. LoudMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- United States v. CushmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1836