Newlan v. Harrington
This text of 24 Ill. 206 (Newlan v. Harrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It is a familiar principle, that a guarantor is not liable beyond the express terms of his undertaking, and a change in those terms, by which a conditional undertaking shall be made absolute, is such a material alteration as will avoid it.
Here, Newlan guaranteed * the collection of the note. This required the party should make some effort to collect the note, for, although a party may be insolvent as to his general liabilities, it may be in his power to pay a particular note.
By cutting off the words, “ the collection of,” the guarantee becomes an absolute one. This is a material alteration, and avoids the guarantee.
Gillet et al. v. Sweat, 1 Gilm. 489; Chappel v. Spencer et al., 23 Barbour, 584; Gardiner v. Harback, 21 Ill. R. 129; 32 Eng. L. & Eq. 162; Ryan v. The Trustees of Shawneetown, 14 Ill. R. 24; 20 Penn. 12; Burchfield v. Moore, 25 Eng. L. & E. 123.
It is not good policy to permit a party interested in such papers, to alter them.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Judgment reverseal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 Ill. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newlan-v-harrington-ill-1860.