192 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

not be foreclosed until two years after the 26th of May, 1828, can-
no!; be considered as an enlargement of the time of payment to the
prejudice of these sureties, who could not be called on for payment
before the mortgage credit had expired.

The defendants have further insisted, that the deed of the 17th
of May, 1828, by which Thomas Clagett made an assignment of
his goods for the benefit of his creditors, gave to Salmon a secu-
rity for the payment of the debt covered by the mortgage, which
he was bound to make available to its full extent; or to hold it for
the benefit of the sureties of Thomas Clagett.
177 *But that deed could not, in any way, bo considered as a
security held by Salmon. His debtor, Thomas Clagett,
placed certain funds, by its means, in the hands of trustees for
the benefit of his creditors generally, which might have been .so
applied or not; but nothing was thereby put into the bands of Sal-
mon, or placed exclusively within his power or control. The agree-
ment of the 26th of the same month, it is true, did give Salmon an
additionable security for his debt; but he alleges, and it is in proof,
that he still holds that security, and has used all due diligence to
make it as productive as possible. There is, therefore, no founda-
tion for this objection upon which these sureties claim to be dis-
charged.

By the agreement of the 26th of May, 1828, it was stipulated,
that after it had been executed by the respective parties, that all
respousibilites to and from Thomas Clagett should be annulled, so
far as the persons represented by those who signed it might be
concerned.

The responsibilities to and from Thomas Clagett, here referred
to, were the notes of Thomas "Clagett, and his contracts for the
payment of money held by Salmon; and his other creditors. It is.
however, only those responsibilities, or securities held by Salmon
alone, and which he annulled, that can, in any way, be considered
as prejudicial to these sureties. The whole instrument of the 26th
of May, 1828, must be taken together; and so taken, it appears,
that Salmon himself discharged Thomas Clagett from no respon-
sibility whatever; because it is expressly stipulated, that Salmon
should retain the mortgage to indemnify him for any deficiency
which might exist after the application of the funds then put into
his hands; in other words, that after so obtaining a partial pay-
ment, Thomas Clagett should be held bound as his debtor for the
balance. So far, then, there is nothing like a discharge of am
security held by Salmon.

But Salmon, it is said, held the notes of Thomas Clagett; and
it is true he did; they were notes signed or endorsed by the
family of Thomas Clagett, who are these very mortgagors and
sureties; and the family of Thomas Clagett were expressly exone-
rated from them only. Those notes were securities upon which