Bailey v. Adams
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, signed by John Adams, jr., and by the defendant, John Adams, as his surety, dated October 19, 1829. The defendant contended that he was discharged from further liability, by a contract between the principal and one Smith Buswell, who it was admitted was the party in interest.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note, signed by John Adams, jr., and by the defendant, John Adams, as his surety, dated October 19, 1829. The defendant contended that he was discharged from further liability, by a contract between the principal and one Smith Buswell, who it was admitted was the party in interest. It appeared in evidence that said John Adams, jr., having been called on by Buswell for payment, went to him, on the 23d December, 1833, and paid him $24-00, which was indorsed on the note — that he at the same time told him that was all the money he could get, and that he wished him to…
1Opinion of the CourtGreen, J.
Every declaration, or promise, by a creditor, made to the principal, without the assent of the surety, will not discharge the surety. In order to have this effect, the promise must be founded upon a sufficient consideration, so as to constitute a binding agreement between the creditor and the principal. Such agreement, when so made, not only binds the creditor so that he cannot sue, but he is not obliged to receive his money, if tendered within the time. The debtor is bound so that he cannot pay, and it is such an extension that discharges the surety. 5 N. H. Rep. 105, Grafton Bank vs.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Grafton Bank v. WoodwardSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1829
- Wheat v. KendallSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fowler v. BrooksSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842
- Hoyt v. FrenchSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851
- McCann v. DennettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843