Leete v. First National Bank ( 1876 )

By the Court.

We see no error here. It is enough to .say that the defaulting assignee is not shown to be insolvent. We must presume that he is solvent until the contrary is ■shown. Apparently, therefore, the plaintifis have a plain remedy against him. Whether, in case of his insolvency, the sureties could maintain the action, by subrogation or -otherwise, need not now be decided.

Judgment affirmed.