|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SALMON v. CLAGETT. 173
and consequently, to the extent of Salmon's claim for indemnity
under the mortgage, he must be regarded as the creditor; Thomas
Clagett as the principal debtor; and Elizabeth Clagett with the
other mortgagors as his sureties. This is the situation in which
the parties have been placed by the mortgage itself; and this salt
brings them here in the same relation towards each other. The
dealings between Salmon and Thomas Clagett are no otherwise of
any importance, in this case, than as shewing the consideration on
which Salmon's claim is founded; and that it is of some amount; or
how far any of Salmon's conduct, in relation to those dealings may
have impaired that implied contract by virtue of which the sureties
of Thomas Clagett have a right to have the impending loss averted
from them by a bill quia timet; or to take the place of Salmon in
order to obtain reimbursement.
It is universally admitted, wherever the relation of principal
debtor and surety subsists, that if the surety pays the whole debt, he
has a right to be put into the place of the creditor as to all his
remedies for the recovery of the debt. This right of subrogation is
recognized in courts of common law as founded upon an implied
contract; and in Chancery as resting upon such a contract; or as
an equity properly belonging to the case; or as based upon
a principle of natural justice, which springs into existence im-
mediately, that the debt falls due, and the surety becomes liable
to be called on for payment. This implied contract binds the
creditor, if required, by bill in equity at the instance of the
surety, to sue immediately for the recovery of his debt; or, if the
debt has been wholly paid by the surety, to transfer to him all his
securities; as well those which he held at the time the surety became
bound as those which he may have since acquired, even without
the privity, or knowledge of the surety; such as a judgment re-
covered against the principal; or a mortgage by way of collateral
security. The surety, in such case, has a right to an assignment of
all the creditor's securities, to enable him to proceed immediately,
in the same manner, as the creditor might have done to obtain
satisfaction or reimbursement. And therefore, if the creditor,
being competent to contract, has by express agreement enlarged
the day of payment; or has, by his acts, increased the peril of the
surety; or has parted with any of his securities; or has, in any
other manner, altered or impaired the obligation of the implied
contract, which, for the protection of the surety, is always associ-
ated with the express contract as its inseparable incident, then the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
