Lashbrooke v. Cole
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Poinsett Chancery Court; Charles D. Frierson, Chancellor; 1. The giving of the alleged notice did not discharge the liability to contribution, because (1), the notice was not sufficiently peremptory, or definite. (2) Jacobs, the principal, was insolvent at the time of giving the notice. (3) The notice was not properly served. (4) The statute has no application to the right of contribution between co-sureties, but applies solely to liability to creditors.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Poinsett Chancery Court; Charles D. Frierson, Chancellor; 1. The giving of the alleged notice did not discharge the liability to contribution, because (1), the notice was not sufficiently peremptory, or definite. (2) Jacobs, the principal, was insolvent at the time of giving the notice. (3) The notice was not properly served. (4) The statute has no application to the right of contribution between co-sureties, but applies solely to liability to creditors. Kirby’s Dig., § § 7921, 7922. 2. The plea of res adjudícala was untenable, and the notice was not sufficiently peremptory or…
1ConcurrenceMcCulloch, C. J.
(concurring.) This case was tried before the circuit judge sitting as a jury, and my opinion is that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding that the notice given by appellee to Mrs. Briant was in substantial conformity with the statute, and that the latter’s failure to sue appellee exonerated him from liability not only to Mrs. Briant but also to appellant his co-surety. Wilson v. Tebbetts, 29 Ark. 579. For that reason I concur in the judgment of affirmance. It is unnecessary to discuss the details of that defense, for the reason that the majority have put the decision on another…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Love v. GibsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1849
- Ruff v. MontgomeryMississippi Supreme Court · 1903
- Coddington v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Comstock v. KeatingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Wilson v. TebbettsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1874