Becker v. Faber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Becker v. Faber

254 A.D. 772, 4 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7553

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 772 (Becker v. Faber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Becker v. Faber, 254 A.D. 772, 4 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiffs, holders of a bond and mortgage, from so much of a judgment as denies to them a deficiency judgment, if any there be after sale of the mortgaged premises, against the executors under the will of John A. Kolle, deceased, who had guaranteed the indebtedness. The Special Term has found that plaintiffs and the mortgagor modified the original agreement by reducing the interest rate and by accepting installment payments not provided in the agreement, and that the surety was discharged when the agreement, the terms of which he guaranteed, was modified. A guarantor or surety is bound by “ the strict letter or precise terms ” of the contract of the principal and is discharged when the agreement upon which the guarantee is based is modified without consent, even though such modification may not be prejudicial. (Ducher v. Rapp, 67 N. Y. 464; Antísdél v. Williamson, 165 id. 372; Katz v. Leblang, 243 App. Div. 421.) That doctrine may be harsh and inequitable, but it is not for this court to change it. Judgment, so far as appeal is taken, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — 'Davis, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.; Lazansky, P. J., not voting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by plaintiffs, holders of a bond and mortgage, from so much of a judgment as denies to them a deficiency judgment, if any there be after sale of the mortgaged premises, against the executors under the will of John A. Kolle, deceased, who had guaranteed the indebtedness. The Special Term has found that plaintiffs and the mortgagor modified the original agreement by reducing the interest rate and by accepting installment payments not provided in the agreement, and that the surety was discharged when the agreement, the terms of which he guaranteed, was modified. A guarantor or surety is bound by “ the strict letter or precise terms ” of the contract of the principal and is discharged when the agreement upon which the guarantee is based is modified without consent, even though such modification may not be prejudicial. (Ducher v. Rapp, 67 N. Y. 464; Antísdél v. Williamson, 165 id. 372; Katz v. Leblang, 243 App. Div. 421.) That doctrine may be harsh and inequitable, but it is not for this court to change it. Judgment, so far as appeal is taken, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — 'Davis, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.; Lazansky, P. J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 772, 4 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-faber-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack