Horne v. Bodwell

71 Mass. 457
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1855·Published

Opinion

Shaw, C. J.

It was competent for the defendant to show that he was a surety only, and that the plaintiff knew it. Carpenter v. King, 9 Met. 511. An agreement with the principal, for a consideration, to give time, and not to sue him within a time limited, discharges the surety. Greely v. Dow, 2 Met. 176. But mere omission to sue the principal will not discharge a surety. Hunt v. Bridgham, 2 Pick. 581.

And the court are of opinion that the averment in the answer was sufficient to let in this proof, especially as the plaintiff did not object to the proof when offered.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Horne v. Bodwell, 71 Mass. 457 (Mass. 1855).

71 Mass. 457 (Horne v. Bodwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bullock v. Curry
59 Ky. 171 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1859)