McAllister v. Dennin
Decision Date | 31 March 1858 |
Citation | 27 Mo. 40 |
Parties | MCALLISTER, Defendant in Error, v. DENNIN et al., Pl iffs in Error. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A release of one of several joint obligors discharges all; to have th effect, however, it must be a technical release under seal.
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
Roger C. McAllister and Thomas O'Flaherty, partners, obtained a judgment against John Lowrie, Patrick Dennin, and David E. Rees, for the sum of $2100.94. On the 23d of December, 1856, McAllister, acting for himself and as the administrator of his deceased partner O'Flaherty, executed in favor of John Lowrie the following instrument:
Dennin and Rees moved the court to enter satisfaction of the judgment above mentioned. This was made upon the above instrument. The court overruled the motion.
H. N. Hart, for plaintiffs in error.
Hudson & Thomas, for defendant in error.
I. A release without consideration and not under seal is void. (Seymour v. Minturn, 17 Johns. 169; Jackson v. Stackhouse, 1 Cow. 122.) The debtor only paid a part of a judgment, the whole of which he was liable for. A release not under seal of one of several covenants will not discharge the co-covenanters. Even a technical release will be construed according to the intention of the parties, and will not operate as a release, unless that intention appears from the face of the instrument. (7 Com. Dig. 222, tit. Release; 6 Bac. Abr. 635.)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prior v. Kiso
...(Miss.) 486; Benjamin v. Hilliard, 23 How. (U. S.) 149. The alleged release of John Kiso not being under seal, was not binding. McAllister v. Dennin, 27 Mo. 40. The facts in the case fail to show a surrender of the original term of the lease by operation of law, and in the absence of such s......
-
Baker v. Hunt
...due, will not, without more, bar a recovery for the balance.” Myers v. Byington, 34 Iowa, 205; Willis v. Gammil, 67 Mo. 730; McAllister v. Dennin, 27 Mo. 40; Rea v. Owen, 37 Iowa, 262; Obendorf v. Union Bank, 1 Amer. Rep. 31; Ryan v. Ward, 8 American Rep. 539; 68 Indiana, 436. In the case a......
-
Chappell v. Allen
...instrument being under seal, is a full and perfect discharge and extinguishment of the debt--5 Barb., S. C. 459; 7 Md. 117; 22 Pick. 308; 27 Mo. 40; 21 Pick. 30; 18 Pick. 346; 17 Mass. 581; 23 Pick. 444. It is not essential any money should be paid; satisfaction in any way is sufficient--27......
- Blakey v. Blakey