New York Court of Chancery, 1843

Rushmore v. Miller

New York Court of Chancery · Decided July 6, 1843

4 Edw. Ch. 84

Counsel

Mr. D. S. Jones, Mr. Rockwell, in reply.

Opinion of the Court

The Vice-Chancellor, decided that a surety, in such a case as the above, could not claim notice or a demand; and might be introduced as a defendant to fix him for any deficiency, without it.(b)

Although the late case of Gillett v. Balcom, 6 Barb. S. C. Rep. 370 has reference to a mortgage made on demand, yet it may be well to refer the reader to it.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.