Treasurers of the State ex rel. Jones v. Sureties of Oswald

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Treasurers of the State ex rel. Jones v. Sureties of Oswald

18 S.C.L. 214

DecidedFebruary 15, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 18 S.C.L. 214 (Treasurers of the State ex rel. Jones v. Sureties of Oswald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Treasurers of the State ex rel. Jones v. Sureties of Oswald, 18 S.C.L. 214 (S.C. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The legal proposition, arising out of the defendant’s plea, is, that they were discharged by the judgment obtained against their principal, Oswald. As applied to joint and several obligations, there can be no question, that a judgment against one of several obligors, without satisfaction, is no bar to a recovery against the others. Whatever may be the effect of the recovery against Oswald, as to his own liability, the liability of those defendants remains precisely as it was before. They were not parties to that suit, nor would they have been liable in that form of action: if liable at all, it is upon their bond, and in this, farm of action ; and their liability must be resolved by the rule before laid down, about which there is no difficulty.

Motion refused.

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

Johnson J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The legal proposition, arising out of the defendant’s plea, is, that they were discharged by the judgment obtained against their principal, Oswald. As applied to joint and several obligations, there can be no question, that a judgment against one of several obligors, without satisfaction, is no bar to a recovery against the others. Whatever may be the effect of the recovery against Oswald, as to his own liability, the liability of those defendants remains precisely as it was before. They were not parties to that suit, nor would they have been liable in that form of action: if liable at all, it is upon their bond, and in this, farm of action ; and their liability must be resolved by the rule before laid down, about which there is no difficulty.

Motion refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 S.C.L. 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treasurers-of-the-state-ex-rel-jones-v-sureties-of-oswald-scctapp-1831.