DocketNumber: No. 41
Judges: Benning
Filed Date: 1/15/1857
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/7/2024
By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
There can be no doubt but that the payment of the note by Hampton, the endorser of it, to Thomas, the plaintiff in the suit, was a bar to the suit considered as a suit at the instance of Thomas ; and a bar in favor of Griffin, the principal, as well as in favor of Hampton, the endorser. Burge on Suretyship, 354.
The question therefore is, whether Hampton, by paying off the note could take the place in the suit of Thomas, the plaintiff, and have rights there that Thomas himself could not have had.
And we think that he could not.
He certainly could not by common- law or by equity. 20 ibid.
We think, therefore, that the Court below erred in not sustaining the motion.
Judgment- Reversed.