Comins v. Pottle

New York Supreme Court

Comins v. Pottle

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 287

DecidedSeptember 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 287 (Comins v. Pottle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Comins v. Pottle, 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 287 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Eollett, J.:

A joint promise is severed by the death of one of the promisors; and the survivor remains liable. (Matter of Rice, 7 Allen, 112, 115; Kennedy v. Carpenter, 2 Wharton, 361.) In the case last cited, two persons became joint accommodation indorsers, and it was said that the survivor was liable on his promise. In Richardson v. Horton (6 Beav., 185), A. and B. were obligors in a joint bond. A., who was alleged to be the principal debtor, died. It was held that the assets of A. were not liable upon the bond ; but that the liability survived to B. Unless B.’s liability to the obligee survived the death of A., B. would have had no cause of action against the estate of A. (Grant v. Shurter, 1 Wend., 148; Godson v. Good, 6 Taunt., 587; Cabell v. Vaughan, 1 Saund., 291, notes; Fort v. Oliver, 1 Maule & S., 242; Weaver v. Shryock, 6 [289]*289Serg. & R., 261; Getty v. Binsse, 49 N. Y., 385; 2 Chitty on Cont., 11 Am. ed., 1351, note S; 3 Williams on Ex., 6 Am. ed., 1842; Chitty Pl., 16 Am. ed., 49; 3 Robinson Pr., 106; 4 Id., 181.)

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Learned, F. J., and Bookes, JJ"., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Eollett, J.:

A joint promise is severed by the death of one of the promisors; and the survivor remains liable. (Matter of Rice, 7 Allen, 112, 115; Kennedy v. Carpenter, 2 Wharton, 361.) In the case last cited, two persons became joint accommodation indorsers, and it was said that the survivor was liable on his promise. In Richardson v. Horton (6 Beav., 185), A. and B. were obligors in a joint bond. A., who was alleged to be the principal debtor, died. It was held that the assets of A. were not liable upon the bond ; but that the liability survived to B. Unless B.’s liability to the obligee survived the death of A., B. would have had no cause of action against the estate of A. (Grant v. Shurter, 1 Wend., 148; Godson v. Good, 6 Taunt., 587; Cabell v. Vaughan, 1 Saund., 291, notes; Fort v. Oliver, 1 Maule & S., 242; Weaver v. Shryock, 6 [289]*289Serg. & R., 261; Getty v. Binsse, 49 N. Y., 385; 2 Chitty on Cont., 11 Am. ed., 1351, note S; 3 Williams on Ex., 6 Am. ed., 1842; Chitty Pl., 16 Am. ed., 49; 3 Robinson Pr., 106; 4 Id., 181.)

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Learned, F. J., and Bookes, JJ"., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comins-v-pottle-nysupct-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack