Bower v. Tiermann
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit, tried at the New-York circuit in July, 1844, before Kent, late 0. Judge. Tile- plaintiff claimed to recover upon the guaranty of the defendant of the payment of a promissory note made by one Truschell, dated March 1,1839, for $500, payable to the plaintiff immediately; and gave evidence tending to sustain the action.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried at the New-York circuit in July, 1844, before Kent, late 0. Judge. Tile- plaintiff claimed to recover upon the guaranty of the defendant of the payment of a promissory note made by one Truschell, dated March 1,1839, for $500, payable to the plaintiff immediately; and gave evidence tending to sustain the action. On the part of the defendant it was shown that Truschell the maker, for whom the defendant was a surety, on the 21st day of December, 1842, executed to the plaintiff a bond and warrant of attorney to confess judgment for the amount of the note, pursuant to which…
1Per curiam
This court has never relaxed the rule that giving time to the principal discharges the surety, further than to say, that if upon confessing judgment such indulgence is given as the debtor might certainly have obtained by the ordinary progress of a suit, the surety shall not be discharged. In this case judgment would have been obtained, had a suit been brought, before the expiration of the sixty days, unless a defence had been interposed. We cannot assume that this would have been done, as no defence in reality existed. We think it would be unsafe to extend the exception to the rule farther…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hart v. HudsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- Harlem Bank v. FalconerNew York Marine Court · 1876
- Porter v. HodenpuylMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
- Stein v. SteindlerCity of New York Municipal Court · 1892
- Steinbock v. EvansThe Superior Court of New York City · 1888