|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SALMON v. CLAGETT. 177
But that deed could not, in any way, be considered as a secu-
rity 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 hands of Salmon, or placed ex-
clusively within his power or control. The agreement of the 26th
of the same month, it is true, did give Salmon an additional secu-
rity 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 foundation for this
objection upon which these sureties claim to be discharged.
By the agreement of the 26th of May, 1828, it was stipulated,
that after it had been executed by the respective parties, that all
responsibilities 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 any
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
they could not sue, nor derive any benefit from; because they were
their own; and an assignment of them according to the requisi-
tions of the implied contract, would have amounted precisely to
that which this agreement declared, a complete exoneration of
their liability, and nothing more. It also appears, that Salmon
23 v.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
