Davis v. Huggins
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit on a note dated January 26, 1820, for ⅝130, payable in six months with interest, and made by Huggins as principal, and Read as surety. Huggins was defaulted.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a note dated January 26, 1820, for ⅝130, payable in six months with interest, and made by Huggins as principal, and Read as surety. Huggins was defaulted. Read appeared and pleaded in bar,that he signed the note as the surety of Huggins, and that on the 1st August, 1820; he requested the plaintiff to collect the contents of the note of Huggins, he being then able to pay ; but that the plaintiff neglected to proceed against said Huggins until the 14th April, 1823, when this suit was commenced, and when the said Huggins had become insolvent, and unable to pay. To this plea the…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.
It is to be considered as settled in this state, that a mere delay to call upon the principal does not, in any case,discharge a surety. 2 N. H. Rep. 448, Townsend vs. Riddle.—1 Gallison 32, Hunt vs. U. S.—Kirby 193, Barnard vs. Norton.—10 East 34.—15 John. 433.
But it has been supposed, that if a creditor contract with his debtor.to give further day of payment, without the assent of the surety, the latter is discharged. Kirby 397, Deming vs. Norton.—1 B. & P. 419, Peel vs. Tatlock.—3 Binney 520.—Holt’s N. P. Rep. 84, Orme vs. Young—10 Johnson 587.
So it has been supposed, that a surety might be…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- King v. BaldwinCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1819
- Townsend v. RiddleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1822
3Cited by2 opinions
- Grafton Bank v. KentSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- McCann v. DennettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843