Dixon v. Ewing's Administrators
Ohio Supreme Court
Heard before Judges Burnet and Sherman, in Brown county, 1827. The bill states that the complainants joined in a title bond to Ewing, as the securities of one Foot, for the conveyance of a tract of land. They had no interest in the transaction. Foot failed to convey the land. Ewing brought suit, and obtained a judgment for one hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifty cents. Execution was taken on the judgment, and levied on some personal property belonging to Foot.
Read the full summary
Heard before Judges Burnet and Sherman, in Brown county, 1827. The bill states that the complainants joined in a title bond to Ewing, as the securities of one Foot, for the conveyance of a tract of land. They had no interest in the transaction. Foot failed to convey the land. Ewing brought suit, and obtained a judgment for one hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifty cents. Execution was taken on the judgment, and levied on some personal property belonging to Foot. The property so levied on was afterward discharged from the execution, and returned to Foot, by order of plaintiffs’ attorney,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
As Foot was the principal debtor, and the complainants were his sureties, the judgment creditors were bound, at least, to let the law take its course, withoutinterfering to exempt the principal debtor, or to relieve his property, in such a way as to increase the risk or eventual loss of the securities. It appears that property belonging to Foot had been taken in execution, by which the judgment might have been in part discharged; and although Foot’s insolvency was notorious, *this property was given up by order of *265the plantiffs’ attorney, who fnust have known that by doing so,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hubbell v. CarpenterNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Naylor v. MoodyIndiana Supreme Court · 1832