Oberndorff v. Union Bank
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from tbe Superior Court of Baltimore City. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellant against the appellee, upon the common counts. At the trial the plaintiff filed an amended narr, containing three counts, the first in assumpsit, the second and third in trover. Pleas — the general issue.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe Superior Court of Baltimore City. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the appellant against the appellee, upon the common counts. At the trial the plaintiff filed an amended narr, containing three counts, the first in assumpsit, the second and third in trover. Pleas — the general issue. The facts in the case are these: On the 16th May, 1860, Stettheimer & Affelder, a firm in Baltimore city, assigned to the appellee a number of collaterals as security for their liability to it, whether then existing or thereafter to arise, as drawers, endorséis, or otherwise, with power…
1Opinion of the CourtAlvey, J.
There is no doubt of the general proposition, that if the creditor release or compound with the principal debtor, without the consent of the surety, although the principal debtor may be in insolvent circumstances, and the arrangement with him be, in truth, to the surety’s advantage, it will, nevertheless, discharge the latter from all responsibility. The question whether the surety has been, in point of fact, actually damnified by such dealing with the principal debtor, is not open to inquiry. It is his right to determine for himself what is, or is not, for his benefit. He must be left free…
2Cited by15 opinions
- George v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
- Gott v. State ex rel. BarnardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- A/C Electric Co. v. Aetna InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
- Eastover Co. v. All Metal Fabricators, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
- Asbell v. Marshall Building & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.