Randall v. Gunter

Mississippi Supreme Court

Randall v. Gunter

179 So. 362, 181 Miss. 332, 1938 Miss. LEXIS 77

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1938

DocketNo. 33097.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 179 So. 362 (Randall v. Gunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randall v. Gunter, 179 So. 362, 181 Miss. 332, 1938 Miss. LEXIS 77 (Mich. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

*335 Anderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Suit was brought in the circuit court of Lowndes county, by appellee, as administrator of the estate of H. H. Gunter, deceased, against J. M. Holloway and appellants, O. S. Randall and E. Randall, on a promissory note of $200, executed by Holloway and the Randalls and payable to the order of the deceased. There was a judgment by default against all the makers of the note, from which appellants appeal, Holloway not joining therein. Judgment by default was taken at a time when there was on file and undisposed of a plea of the general issue with notice of payment by all the defendants. A judgment by default where there is a plea on file presenting a valid defense is erroneous. McIntosh v. Munson Road Machinery Co., 167 Miss. 546, 145 So. 731; Dalton v. Rhodes Motor Co., 153 Miss. 51, 120. So. 821; Hambrick v. Dent, 70 Miss. 59, 11 So. 608; Biloxi Lumber & Export Co. v. New Orleans Ry. & Mill Supply Co., Miss., 28 So. 21; Beard v. Orr & Lindsey Shoe Co., Miss., 8 So. 512; Selser v. Wilkinson, 1 Miss., Walk., 108; Rowley v. Cummings, 9 Miss. 340, 1 Smedes & M. 340; Kidd v. Harris, 30 Miss. 396; Taylor v. McNairy, 42. Miss. 276; Shirley v. Conway, 44 Miss. 434; Dean v. McKinstry, 2 Smedes & M. 213.

Appellee undertakes to justify the judgment upon the ground that Holloway was the principal maker of the note and appellants were only indorsers,. and that the failure of the principal maker to move for a new trial or prosecute an appeal was a waiver of the defense set up in the plea and notice thereunder, binding on appellants as well as on the principal maker. In the first place, appellants appear on the note, not as sureties, hut as principal makers with Holloway; hut conceding that they were sureties, for the sake of the argument, the contention is without merit — the defense' wab payment of the note. If it was paid, there was no liability on. the part *336 of either the principal or the sureties, and by no move or failure to move in the case could the principal make the sureties liable.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*335 Anderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Suit was brought in the circuit court of Lowndes county, by appellee, as administrator of the estate of H. H. Gunter, deceased, against J. M. Holloway and appellants, O. S. Randall and E. Randall, on a promissory note of $200, executed by Holloway and the Randalls and payable to the order of the deceased. There was a judgment by default against all the makers of the note, from which appellants appeal, Holloway not joining therein. Judgment by default was taken at a time when there was on file and undisposed of a plea of the general issue with notice of payment by all the defendants. A judgment by default where there is a plea on file presenting a valid defense is erroneous. McIntosh v. Munson Road Machinery Co., 167 Miss. 546, 145 So. 731; Dalton v. Rhodes Motor Co., 153 Miss. 51, 120. So. 821; Hambrick v. Dent, 70 Miss. 59, 11 So. 608; Biloxi Lumber & Export Co. v. New Orleans Ry. & Mill Supply Co., Miss., 28 So. 21; Beard v. Orr & Lindsey Shoe Co., Miss., 8 So. 512; Selser v. Wilkinson, 1 Miss., Walk., 108; Rowley v. Cummings, 9 Miss. 340, 1 Smedes & M. 340; Kidd v. Harris, 30 Miss. 396; Taylor v. McNairy, 42. Miss. 276; Shirley v. Conway, 44 Miss. 434; Dean v. McKinstry, 2 Smedes & M. 213.

Appellee undertakes to justify the judgment upon the ground that Holloway was the principal maker of the note and appellants were only indorsers,. and that the failure of the principal maker to move for a new trial or prosecute an appeal was a waiver of the defense set up in the plea and notice thereunder, binding on appellants as well as on the principal maker. In the first place, appellants appear on the note, not as sureties, hut as principal makers with Holloway; hut conceding that they were sureties, for the sake of the argument, the contention is without merit — the defense' wab payment of the note. If it was paid, there was no liability on. the part *336 of either the principal or the sureties, and by no move or failure to move in the case could the principal make the sureties liable.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 So. 362, 181 Miss. 332, 1938 Miss. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-gunter-miss-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack