|
|
|
|
|
|
|
174 SALMON v. CLAGETT.
is discharged; upon the ground, that all such acts are
against the faith of the implied contract, by virtue of which, the
surety had precisely the same right the creditor had; and must be
allowed to take his place in all respects; and also upon the ground
that the creditor is a trustee of his security; that is, the bond,
judgment, execution, or the like, for all parties interested in it; or
who may ultimately resort to it for relief, (p)
It is believed that the obligation of private contracts has been
regarded by all civilized people as of the highest and most inviola-
ble sanctity; and according to our fundamental law, there is no
power in the land by which the obligation of such contracts can be,
in any manner, lessened or impaired. Here, and as to this point,
it is not pretended, that the mortgage itself has been, or can be, in
any way, stripped of a single atom of its own proper, legal or equita-
ble, obligatory force. But these defendants, who stand here as
sureties, referring to that implied contract, the incident of the mort-
gage, to the full benefit of which they are entitled; urge, that its
obligation has been materially impaired to their prejudice; and
therefore, that they are discharged. They allege that its obligation
has been altered, diminished, or destroyed by the circumstance of
Salmon having increased their peril by giving to Thomas Clagett
credit for an amount greater than that specified in the deed; and
by having, by an express agreement with Thomas Clagett, after the
debt became due, enlarged the time of payment; and also by his
having released a security he had procured, by means of which he
might, for aught that appears, hare obtained a complete satisfaction
of his debt,
On behalf of the sureties of Thomas Clagett, it was contended,
that their guaranty of indemnity was, in all respects, a limited one,
by which they not only intended that they themselves should not
be responsible beyond a specified amount; but that Thomas Cla-
gett should not be credited for more than that amount by Salmon ;
because by so involving him beyond the specified sum, his situa-
(p) Baker v. Shelbury, 1 Cha. Ca. 70; Ranelaugh v. Hayes, 1 Vern. 190; Par-
sons v. Briddock, 2 Vern. 608; Nisbet v. Smith, 2 Bro. C. C. 570; Ex parte
Smith, B Bro, C. C. 1; Rees v. Berrington, 2 Ves., jun., 540; Ex parte Rushforth,
10 Ves, 420; Wright v. Morley, 11 Ves. 22; Craythorne v. Swinburne, 14 Yes. 164;
Samuell v. Howarth, 3 Meriv. 272; Antrobus v. Davidson, 3 Meriv, 570; Mayhew
9. Cricket t, i Swan. 187; Wallwyn P, St Quinton, 1 Bos. & Pul. 652; English v.
Darley, I Bos. & Pul. 61; Ward r. Johnson, 6 Mun. 6; Hill v. Bull, Gilm. 149;
M'Mahon v. Fawcett, 2 Rand. 514; Creager v. Bringle, 5 H. & J. 234; Bowers
v. The State, 7 H. & J. 32; Hollingsworth v. Floyd, 2 H. & G, 87; Lenox v.
Prout, 3 Wheat. 520.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
