Pilgrim v. Dykes

24 Tex. 383
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1859·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Bull, J.

We are of opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the court below. The rule of law is well settled, that where a creditor enters into a distinct agreement with the principal debtor for an extension of the time of payment of the debt, or for delay in the collection of the debt, the surety is discharged from liability by such agreement. (Burke v. Cruger, 8 Texas Rep. 66, and subsequent decisions of this court.)

The issues were fairly submitted by the court, to the jury, and were responded to by the verdict, and there is no reason for disturbing the judgment. The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pilgrim v. Dykes, 24 Tex. 383 (Tex. 1859).

24 Tex. 383 (Pilgrim v. Dykes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thompson v. Welders Supply Co.
82 S.W.2d 753 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
C. J. Gerlach & Bro., Inc. v. Du Bose
210 S.W. 742 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Speer v. Rushing
183 S.W. 67 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Hall & Ruckel v. Johnston, Hill & Co.
24 S.W. 861 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1894)
Babcock v. Milmo National Bank
1 White & W. 468 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1883)
John Hoerr & Bro. v. Coffin
1 White & W. 73 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1881)
Yeary v. Smith
45 Tex. 56 (Texas Supreme Court, 1876)