Comegys v. Booth

3 Stew. 14
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided July 15, 1830·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

By LIPSCOMB, Chief Justice.

The contract between the agent for the plaintiffs, and Garner, underwent the consideration of this Court, some time ago, in a case between the same plaintiffs and Cox and Harris, the sureties of Garner, in his writ of error bond. On much consideration, it was then unanimously held, that the sureties were discharged, on the principle that a contract founded on a good consideration, giving time to the principal debtor without the consent of his sureties, discharged them from all liability. This doctrine we have since recognized in the case of Ellis v. Bibb,

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

Comegys v. Booth, 3 Stew. 14 (Ala. 1830).

3 Stew. 14 (Comegys v. Booth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hudson Trust Co. v. Elliott
69 So. 631 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)
White's Adm'r v. Life Ass'n of America
63 Ala. 419 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1879)
Knighton v. Curry
62 Ala. 404 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1878)
Kirtz v. Spaugh
1 Wilson 267 (Indiana Super. Ct., 1873)
Cox v. Mobile & Girard Railroad
37 Ala. 320 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1861)
Boyd v. Beck
29 Ala. 703 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1857)
Keep v. Kelly & Levin
29 Ala. 322 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1856)