Tate v. Wymond

Indiana Supreme Court

Tate v. Wymond

7 Blackf. 240, 1844 Ind. LEXIS 111

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 25, 1844·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

A SPECIALTY creditor madé a parol agreement with his principal debtor on the day the debt became due, without the surety’s consent, to give him (the principal debtor) the further time of one year for payment; and the time was given accordingly. Held, in an action of debt against the surety, that these facts were no defence to the suit. Davey v. Prendergrass, 5 B. & Ald. 187.

[241] In debt on a specialty, the plea of nil debet, though bad on general demurrer, is not a nüllity ; and a finaFjudgment for the plaintiff in such suit, there being a plea of nil debet unanswered, is erroneous.

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

A SPECIALTY creditor madé a parol agreement with his principal debtor on the day the debt became due, without the surety’s consent, to give him (the principal debtor) the further time of one year for payment; and the time was given accordingly. Held, in an action of debt against the surety, that these facts were no defence to the suit. Davey v. Prendergrass, 5 B. & Ald. 187.

[241] In debt on a specialty, the plea of nil debet, though bad on general demurrer, is not a nüllity ; and a finaFjudgment for the plaintiff in such suit, there being a plea of nil debet unanswered, is erroneous.

Tate v. Wymond, 7 Blackf. 240, 1844 Ind. LEXIS 111 (Ind. 1844).

Pincite

7 Blackf. 240 (Tate v. Wymond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related