Bulloch Mortgage Loan Co. v. Jones

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The defendant Jones contends that the acts of the plaintiff in dealing with the cosurety, Nessmith, operated to increase the risk of Jones as a surety on the obligation, and to expose him to greater liability as a surety thereon, and therefore that under the Code, § 103-203, the plaintiff is not entitled to revive the judgment obtained in the suit against the principal and sureties on such obligation, as against Jones. “Any act of the creditor, either before or after judgment against the principal, which injures the surety or increases his risk, or exposes…