Dusenberry v. O'Shiel
Opinion of the Court
This was an action of covenant. It appeared in evidence, that one Pepper hired a house of the plaintiff and that the defendant agreed to become his surety for the payment of the
If the covenant between the plaintiff and Pepper had been completed, by the delivery of the deed, and there had been a subsequent erasure of the signature, perhaps the re-execution of if, by Pepper would have created a new contract, to which the defendant would have been no party. But in the present case, the covenant of Pepper, which the defendant guarantied, had never been executed. The plaintiff objected to accept a delivery of the deed, on the ground of a supposed defect in the mode of execution. The signing and sealing of it anew, was then nothing more than an original execution and delivery of the covenant. The defendant, by signing the guaranty on the covenant itself, and entrusting it to Pepper, thereby gave him authority to complete the delivery of both instruments to the plaintiff. There was no alteration in the terms of the contract. The surety, therefore, could not be prejudiced, nor can he say that the covenant is not such as he intended to guaranty.
Motion for anew trial denied.
[W. Mulock, Att’y for the def't.]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.