Bower v. Tiermann

3 Denio 378
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1846·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court has never relaxed the rule that giving time to the principal discharges the surety, further than to say, that if upon confessing judgment such indulgence is given as the debtor might certainly have obtained by the ordinary progress of a suit, the surety shall not be discharged. In this case judgment would have been obtained, had a suit been brought, before the expiration of the sixty days, unless a defence had been interposed. We cannot assume that this would have been done, as no defence in reality existed. We think it would be unsafe to extend the exception to the rule farther than has already been done here. If the case referred to gives greater latitude, it ought not to be followed.

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

Bower v. Tiermann, 3 Denio 378 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

3 Denio 378 (Bower v. Tiermann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stein v. Steindler
1 Misc. 414 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1892)
Steinbock v. Evans
23 Jones & S. 278 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1888)
Harlem Bank v. Falconer
1 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 43 (New York Marine Court, 1876)
Porter v. Hodenpuyl
9 Mich. 11 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1860)
Hart v. Hudson
6 Duer 294 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1857)