Bancroft v. Pearce & Dwinnell
Bancroft v. Pearce & Dwinnell
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
If there is any difficulty in maintaining this action by the surety, against the principals upon the jail bond, it arises from the fact that Wing did not apply the money on the jail bond, hut took a judgment for the full sum of the original judgment.
The $175.00 which the surety paid, was, by agreement between him and Wing, to apply as payment, to that extent, on the debt,— and, when the surety had paid that sum, and had obtained from Wing his bond that he should not further call upon the surety, in case he got judgment on the jail bond, he ceased further to defend the action, but left that exclusively with the principals. The principals, before final judgment was rendered against them, were aware the surety had paid the $175.00, and that he had been discharged from further liability, although it is not stated that they knew that it was to be applied as payment pro tanto ; yet this is the proper inference, following from the payment of the money, unless there is enough in the case to show it otherwise. At all events, the defendants knew enough to put them on inquiry, before they permitted the damages to be-assessed for the full amount of the debt.
The result is, the judgment of the county court is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Carlos Bancroft v. Pearce & Dwinnell
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- A payment made by a surety, in compromise of his supposed liability, upon a disputed claim against him and his principal, may be recovered by the surety of the principal, if it turns out that there was an actual liability, and the principal has, or is entitled to the benefit of the payment, in discharge of so much of the original claim against him.