Low v. Smart

5 N.H. 353
Superior Court of New Hampshire·Decided January 15, 1831·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the court.

The law seems to be perfectly settled, that one surety is entitled to the benefit of any security which another,'who is his co-surety, has. 1 Johns. S. C. Rep. 409; 10 ditto, 524 ; 11 ditto, 22—23 ; 10 ditto, 409 ; 4 ditto, C. Rep. 123 ; 4 N. H. Rep. 488 ; 4 Vesey, 824 ; 1 Johns. Cases, 137 ; 17 Johns. 384 ; 7 ditto, 336 ; 8 Pick. 122 ; 5 ditto, 307 ; 17 Mass. Rep. 464 ; 2 Binney, 382.

This being the case, it is clear that Emery had an interest in the event of the suit inclining him in favor of the plaintiff, who called him. He was, therefore, improperly admitted to testify for the plaintiff, and there must be

A new trial granted.

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

Low v. Smart, 5 N.H. 353 (N.H. Super. Ct. 1831).

5 N.H. 353 (Low v. Smart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Currier v. Fellows
27 N.H. 366 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1853)