Townsend v. Riddle
Superior Court of New Hampshire
A judgment in favor of one joint and several promiser is no bar to an action against another promiser, unless it- appear that the judgment w.as founded on a satisfaction or discharge of the contract.
Read the full summary
A judgment in favor of one joint and several promiser is no bar to an action against another promiser, unless it- appear that the judgment w.as founded on a satisfaction or discharge of the contract. Where one of such promisers was in fact a mere surety, a delay to collect the ' debt from the principal until the remedy over by the surety is lost, does not exonerate the surety, •' ■ \ This was assumpsit on a promissory note, dated February 22, 1814, for $188 70, on demand, with interest. It was signed by the defendant and one John Riddle, as joint and several'promisers. At the trial here in…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
The proceedings before the commission' Death discharged the ersoperated asa discharge of one of the joint and several* promisers in the note now in suit.(l) person of John Riddle ; and no action can be instituted against his estate, when represented insolvent.
The first question, then, is whether a decision in favor of John Riddle’s estate by the commissioners must, by operation of law, be deemed a bar to this action against the other promiser. When contracts are joint, any kind of discharge of one promiser on the merits of the contract is in law a discharge of all the promisers. 1 Lev. 63.—1…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Livingston v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Robertson v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- People v. JansenNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Hartness v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1809
3Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. HugginsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825
- Grafton Bank v. KentSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- McCann v. DennettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843