Winn v. Sanford
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against the surety upon the following bond, executed by Susan B. Winn as principal, and by the defendant as surety: “ Know all men by these presents, that we, Susan B. Winn, wife of John Winn, of Nantucket, as principal, and Frederick C. Sanford, of Nantucket, as surety, are holden and stand firmly bound unto John Winn, of Nantucket, above named, in the sum of three hundred dollars, to the payment of which to the said John Winn, or his executors, administrators, or…
Read the full summary
Contract against the surety upon the following bond, executed by Susan B. Winn as principal, and by the defendant as surety: “ Know all men by these presents, that we, Susan B. Winn, wife of John Winn, of Nantucket, as principal, and Frederick C. Sanford, of Nantucket, as surety, are holden and stand firmly bound unto John Winn, of Nantucket, above named, in the sum of three hundred dollars, to the payment of which to the said John Winn, or his executors, administrators, or assigns, we hereby jointly and severally bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators. The condition of this…
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
It is true, as a general proposition, that the liability of a guarantor or of a surety is limited by that of his principal. But to this there are certain exceptions. Thus, where the principal is excused from liability for reasons personal to himself, and which do not affect the debt he has incurred or the promise he has made, the surety would not be entitled to the benefit of this excuse. In such case, he is, in a certain sense, an independent promisor, and must perform his promise.
In Maggs v. Ames, 4 Bing. 470, the defendant had guaranteed the purchases made by a married woman incapable of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jones v. CrosthwaiteSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Davis v. StattsIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- St. Albans Bank v. DillonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1857
- Nabb v. KoontzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1861
- Stillwell v. BertrandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- City National Bank of Columbus v. JordanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- International Textbook Co. v. MabbottWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
- Gates v. TebbettsNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
- McCormick v. . CrottsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Bath Gas Light Co. v. RowlandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.