Stage v. Olds

12 Ohio St. 158
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1843
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 12 Ohio St. 158 (Stage v. Olds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stage v. Olds, 12 Ohio St. 158 (Ohio 1843).

Opinion

Read, Judge.

The single question in this case, is, whether the defendants can be sued jointly.

When several persons execute an instrument, in parol or under seal, upon the same consideration, at the same time, and for the same purpose, and taking effect from a single delivery, they are, in legal effect, joint contractors or obligors. The *fact that some may have exe- [168 euted it as sureties does not affect the joint nature of the contract or obligation, but is mere evidence of the position of the makers among themselves, and protects the security in such advantage as the law bestows upon that relation. The particular form or manner in which the parties have affixed their signatures to a contract or bond is immaterial. It matters not whether those who execute as sureties sign their names directly under that of the principal, and then append to each name the fact of the signing merely as surety, or, whether, as in this instance, the sureties write between their names and that of the principals; that they sign as securities, and then affix signatures.

In the case of Hunt’s Administrator v. Adams, 5 Mass. 358, a note executed in the precise form of this bond was held, by Chief Justice Parsons, to be joint. In the case of Bright v. Carpenter and Shuer, 9 Ohio, 139, the principle is recognized, that it matters not on what part of a note a person may sign his name, if it be connected with the original execution, he may be treated as a maker. In Morris v. Bird, 11 Mass. 436, it is held, that if a person sign a note after its execution by the principal, if it was understood at the time of making the nóte that such person was to sign it, and the acceptance of the note was in consideration of such signing, he will be held as a joint maker.

The principle to be extracted from all the cases, is, that parties connected with the original execution and delivery of a bond, note, or other written instrument, are, in law, unless it be otherwise clearly expressed, joint makers or obligors

[169]*169In the case under consideration, the bond was executed at the same time, upon the same consideration, and for the same purpose, and ■with one delivery. There is but one execution, a single covenant, and one entire breach. All covenanted to save Stage, harmless, from further claim from the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company. They united in the execution and delivery of the bond, and the law will not sever them in the breach, but hold them jointly responsible for its performance. The demurrer must be overruled.

Judgment for plaintiff.

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

Related

STATE v. ARRINGTON
2018 OK CIV APP 58 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2018)
Opinion No.
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1983
Opinion No. 80-166 (1980) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1980
Opinion No. (1977) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1977
Opinion No. Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1949
Wagner v. Wolf
106 N.W. 1024 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1906)
Hendrickson v. Brown
1901 OK 33 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1901)
Bingham v. Keylor
53 P. 729 (Washington Supreme Court, 1898)
Halbert v. Armstrong
14 Ohio C.C. 296 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1897)
Davis v. H. B. Claflin Co.
38 S.W. 662 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1896)
Cross v. Brown
23 A. 761 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1891)
Espenhain v. Meyer
43 N.W. 157 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1889)
Putnam, Hooker & Co. v. Loeb & Schoenfeld
2 Ohio C.C. 110 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1887)
C. M. Henderson & Co. v. Stetter
31 Kan. 56 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1883)
Jones v. Moody
59 Miss. 327 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1881)
Seibert v. Switzer
35 Ohio St. (N.S.) 661 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1880)
Endel v. Leibrock
33 Ohio St. (N.S.) 254 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1877)
A. C. Rudolf & Co. v. R. L. McDonald & Co.
6 Neb. 163 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1877)
Fosdick v. Green
1 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 537 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Ohio St. 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stage-v-olds-ohio-1843.