Legal Opinion

Tate v. Wymond

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 25, 1844PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

A SPECIALTY creditor madé a parol agreement with his principal debtor on the day the debt became due, without the surety’s consent, to give him (the principal debtor) the further time of one year for payment; and the time was given accordingly. Held, in an action of debt against the surety, that these facts were no defence to the suit. Davey v. Prendergrass, 5 B. & Ald. 187.

*241In debt on a specialty, the plea of nil debet, though bad on general demurrer, is not a nüllity ; and a finaFjudgment for the plaintiff in such suit, there being a plea of nil debet unanswered, is erroneous.

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Dickerson v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1855
  2. Paine v. VoorheesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Hayes v. WellsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1871
  4. Alexander v. Capitol Lumber Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Carr v. HowardIndiana Supreme Court · 1846

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API