Bever v. Butler
Ohio Supreme Court
Debt on a penal bond, conditioned that Butler should make a •deed for certain land, within a stipulated time. Hull pleaded three pleas, in substance: that he was security in the obligation, and after its execution; but before the time for making the deed, Bever, by •agreement with Butler, without the defendant’s knowledge or consent, postponed the time for making the deed, beyond the time mentioned in the condition, to such time as he should demand it. ■The plaintiff…
Read the full summary
Debt on a penal bond, conditioned that Butler should make a •deed for certain land, within a stipulated time. Hull pleaded three pleas, in substance: that he was security in the obligation, and after its execution; but before the time for making the deed, Bever, by •agreement with Butler, without the defendant’s knowledge or consent, postponed the time for making the deed, beyond the time mentioned in the condition, to such time as he should demand it. ■The plaintiff replied, that after the postponement, he demanded the deed, which was refused. To this there is a general demurrer.
1Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT.
The case of The Sank of Steubenville v. Carrol, 5 O. 214, is decisive of this. The cases cited upon the subject of valid contracts and good consideration, do not apply to the -question before us. In this case, the contract (to give time) has *376been executed by the parties as a valid one, and it does not lie in the' mouth of either now to say, they might have refused to execute the contract,'because it was without consideration. The real question is, was'time given by the obligee to the principal debtor, without the consent of the surety ? that is alleged and admitted by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dolph v. BarneyOregon Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hoffman v. Foster & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862