Hinsdill v. Murray
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a Bill in Chancery, which alleged in substance, that on the 28th day of March, 1827, the orator signed a note of $ 1000 to the Bank of Burlington as surety for Allen and Warren Murray, and that Harvey Murray was also a surety. — That when said note became due, $250 was paid by said Allen Murray, and a new note given for $750, which vras presented at the bank, and rejected, because it was not signed by Harvey Murray; and that the $1000 note was retained by the bank.…
Read the full summary
This was a Bill in Chancery, which alleged in substance, that on the 28th day of March, 1827, the orator signed a note of $ 1000 to the Bank of Burlington as surety for Allen and Warren Murray, and that Harvey Murray was also a surety. — That when said note became due, $250 was paid by said Allen Murray, and a new note given for $750, which vras presented at the bank, and rejected, because it was not signed by Harvey Murray; and that the $1000 note was retained by the bank. — That about the 12th of July, 1827, the said Allen and Warren became embarrassed and unable to pay their debts; and for…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was pronounced by
Phelps, J.
— This bill alleges, in substance, that the orator and the respondent, Harvey Murray, were co-sureties for Allen and Warren Murray, at the Burlington Bank.— That A. and W. Murray, being in failing circumstances, on the 12th of July, 1827, assigned to the respondent, H. Murray, certain personal property for the joint benefit of Harvey and the orator, to secure them from their liability at the bank. — That the property was subsequently attached by Boynton and Hurlbut, who were also creditors of A. & W. Murray. For this taking, Harvey brought…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Seibert v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- Felton v. BisselSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- Miller v. SawyerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Scribner v. AdamsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1882