Porter v. Hodenpuyl
Michigan Supreme Court
Assumpsit on a promissory note, of which the follow* ing is a copy: “$549. Sixty days after date for value received, we or either of us jointly promise to pay, to the order of J. S. Nevius, five hundred and forty-nine dollars, payable at the banking office of Wm. J.’ Wells, Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids, May 28, 1857. II S. Watrous, lewis Porter, Surety.” The note was endorsed by Nevius to the plaintiff in May or June, 1858. Porter alone defended.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note, of which the follow* ing is a copy: “$549. Sixty days after date for value received, we or either of us jointly promise to pay, to the order of J. S. Nevius, five hundred and forty-nine dollars, payable at the banking office of Wm. J.’ Wells, Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids, May 28, 1857. II S. Watrous, lewis Porter, Surety.” The note was endorsed by Nevius to the plaintiff in May or June, 1858. Porter alone defended. He proved that Watrous made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, October 9, 1857, and ho also proved by Charles C. Miller, that in a…
1Dissent
Martin Ch. J.,
dissenting:
No one can read the testimony in this case and'believe that Porter made any promise with a knowledge of the fact that, by the extension, his liability had been discharged. *17Until the conversation in June, when he peremptorily refused to pay, he acted upon the supposition of a continuing liability; but having- then ascertained the fact that he was discharged from his. liability by the extensions given by Watrous, he refused to be bound.
The question now is, whether he is liable upon his original promise as surety under this state of facts. This promise was that Watrous…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Juzan v. ToulminSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Bangs v. StrongNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
- Bower v. TiermannNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Sneed's v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1830