Gilstrap v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gilstrap v. Smith

28 S.E. 608, 101 Ga. 120, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 170

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 7, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 28 S.E. 608 (Gilstrap v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilstrap v. Smith, 28 S.E. 608, 101 Ga. 120, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 170 (Ga. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

We think that the judge did not err in granting a nonsuit. J. O. Martin was surety on the notes. Blackwell, his administrator, proposed to pay Smith, the holder, $100 to be released from his obligation as surety. Smith accepted the money and released Blackwell. The principals claimed that the sum so paid should be placed as a credit on the notes. We think that the payment should not enure to the benefit of the principals. It was not made to satisfy the debt, but was designed only to secure the release of the surety. He was willing to pay that much to be released from his liability on the notes, and the one hundred dollars paid was given in consideration of such release. It was not paid for the benefit of the principals, and they can not compel the holder to place it as a credit on the notes. The holder of a note may compound with the surety thereon without releasing the principal. Civil Code, §2970 ; 2 Brandt on Suretyship, 484 ; Peer v. Keen, 14 Mich. 354. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Simmons, C. J.

We think that the judge did not err in granting a nonsuit. J. O. Martin was surety on the notes. Blackwell, his administrator, proposed to pay Smith, the holder, $100 to be released from his obligation as surety. Smith accepted the money and released Blackwell. The principals claimed that the sum so paid should be placed as a credit on the notes. We think that the payment should not enure to the benefit of the principals. It was not made to satisfy the debt, but was designed only to secure the release of the surety. He was willing to pay that much to be released from his liability on the notes, and the one hundred dollars paid was given in consideration of such release. It was not paid for the benefit of the principals, and they can not compel the holder to place it as a credit on the notes. The holder of a note may compound with the surety thereon without releasing the principal. Civil Code, §2970 ; 2 Brandt on Suretyship, 484 ; Peer v. Keen, 14 Mich. 354. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.E. 608, 101 Ga. 120, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilstrap-v-smith-ga-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack