Executors of Sibley v. Stull

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Executors of Sibley v. Stull

15 N.J.L. 332

DecidedMay 15, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.J.L. 332 (Executors of Sibley v. Stull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Executors of Sibley v. Stull, 15 N.J.L. 332 (N.J. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court, was delivered by

Hornblower, C. J.

I think the demurrer must be overruled. The liability of the defendants was not conditional, but absolute according to the express terms of their covenant. Plaintiffs were not bound to demand payment of the obligor, or to use due diligence as in the case of mercantile securities; hence they were not obliged to give notice of non-payment. Nor is a special request necessary in this case, as in those cases where defendant’s liability is contingent or dependent upon the happening of some event, or upon the doing of something by the plaintiff.

Demurrer overruled.

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

The opinion of the court, was delivered by

Hornblower, C. J.

I think the demurrer must be overruled. The liability of the defendants was not conditional, but absolute according to the express terms of their covenant. Plaintiffs were not bound to demand payment of the obligor, or to use due diligence as in the case of mercantile securities; hence they were not obliged to give notice of non-payment. Nor is a special request necessary in this case, as in those cases where defendant’s liability is contingent or dependent upon the happening of some event, or upon the doing of something by the plaintiff.

Demurrer overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.J.L. 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/executors-of-sibley-v-stull-nj-1836.