Myers v. First Nat'l Bank of Fairbury.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 78 Ill. 257,1875 WL 8466 |
| Parties | GEORGE W. MYERSv.FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FAIRBURY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. NATHANIEL J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.
Mr. A. E. HARDING, and Mr. D. L. MURDOCK, for the appellant.
Mr. H. H. MCDOWELL, and Mr. L. E. PAYSON, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:
The law is well settled, that, where an extension of time is given a principal debtor for the payment of money, by a valid and binding agreement, without the assent of the sureties for its payment, they are thereby released. Danforth v. Semple, Sept. T. 1874. That principle is conclusive of the case at bar. Appellant was the security for the other makers of the note which is the basis of this action. An extension of time was given the principals to pay the indebtedness evidenced by the note, without the knowledge or consent of appellant. The consideration for the agreement was, that they would pay plaintiff interest at an usurious rate on their indebtedness. That consideration was paid by one of the principals, and was accepted by plaintiff. According to the doctrine of Danforth v. Semple, supra, the payment of such a consideration created a valid and binding contract for the extension of the time of payment of the note for the period agreed upon, and having been made without the knowledge or consent of the surety, he was thereby released.
Appellee has assigned a single cross error, viz: the court erred in sustaining appellant's motion to strike from the record the stipulation of the parties to submit the cause for trial.
The evidence furnished by the affidavit on file is conflicting as to whether the stipulation was understandingly placed with the files of the case, and for that reason we are not willing to say the court erred in its judgment. We adopt this view the more readily because it is apparent appellee has suffered no injury in consequence of the action of the court. It is not claimed appellee was not afforded ample opportunity to present all its evidence. The course pursued by the court was in the interest of justice. No injury came to appellee, and had appellant been compelled to try the cause on the stipulation alone, he would have been deprived of testimony that was all important to his defense.
The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stillwell v. Aaron
...Austin v. Dorwin, 21 Vt. 38; Vilas v. Jones, 10 Paige 76; White v. Whitney, 51 Ind. 124; Wittmer v. Ellison, 72 Ill. 301; Myers v. First National Bank, 78 Ill. 257; Calvin v. Wiggam, 27 Ind. 489; Redman v. Deputy, 26 Ind. 338; Rose v. Williams, 5 Kan. 483; Christner v. Brown, 16 Iowa 130; P......
-
S. Grabfelder & Co. v. Willis
... ... Semple, 73 Ill. 170; Woolford v. Dow, 34 Ill. 424; Myers v. First Nat. Bank, 78 Ill. 257; Farwell v. Meyer, 35 Ill ... ...
-
Price v. Reed
... ... Cranch against William K. Reed and the Dime Savings Bank, to enforce the sale of collateral security given to secure ... Wohlleben, 90 Ill. 537;Myers v. Bank, 78 Ill. 257;Danforth v. Semple, 73 Ill ... his debtor by accepting in lieu four other notes,-the first for $300, due on demand; and the other three for a $1,000 ... ...
-
W. W. Kimball Co. v. Baker
...W. REP. 421;Grant v. Smith, 46 N. Y. 93;Fond du Lac v. Moore, 58 Wis. 170;S. C. 15 N. W. REP. 782;Thomas v. Olney, 16 Ill. 53;Myers v. First Nat. Bank, 78 Ill. 257. The plaintiff having thus violated its engagement with the sureties, as recited in the bond, was no longer in a position to re......