|
|
|
|
|
|
|
178 SALMON v. CLAGETT
had lent his name to Thomas Clagett, which Salmon had taken
up at maturity. but these were responsibilities or securities upon
which Thomas Clagett could not have been sued, upon assign-
ment, in any form, from Salmon.The securities, which a surety
has a right to have transferred to him, must be such as would have
enabled the creditor to obtain satisfaction of his debt from funds,
or from person other than the surety himself; but in this case
there were no such securities held by Salmon. It follows, there-
fore, that this objection also of the defendants must fail.
But the plaintiff contended, that even if the mortgage might
have been foreclosed at any time after he became liable on his
notes lent to Thomas Clagett; or after Thomas Clagett's notes; or
the money he lent him became due; and even if the agreement of
the 26th of May, 1828, should be considered as an express en-
largement of the time of payment; yet, that these sureties cannot
be discharged; because all the remedies have been reserved.
It is laid down, that a composition with, or giving time to the
principal debtor with a reservation of the creditor's remedies will
not discharge the surety. The giving of time to the principal
debtor with a reservation of the remedies, has, in many cases, the
appearance of absurdity; because, when distinctly understood, it
seems to be almost a flat contradiction in terms. Such a reserva-
tion of remedies in order to hold the surety bound must amount to
this, that the creditor agrees to give time to the debtor; and yet,
that they both agree, that the surety may, at any time, force the
creditor to proceed against the principal by a bill quia timet, or by
paying the whole debt, have an assignment of all the securities
and proceed immediately himself against the principal debtor; or
in any other mode authorized by the assigned securities. Such
an agreement, reserving the remedies, might not, in many eases,
be of the least benefit to the principal debtor; since it leaves him
entirely at the mercy of his surety; yet if the parties do so ex-
pressly contract, the surety can have no cause to complain, that
the implied contract has teen altered or impaired, in any way, Id
his prejudice; and therefore he cannot be discharged, (s)
(t) Ex parte Gifford, 6 Ves. 807; Boultbee v. Stubbs, 18 Ves. 20; Clarke v.
Devlin, 3 Bos.. & Pul. 363; Gould v. Robson, 8 East. 576; The United States v.
Stansbury, 1 Peters, 573 It has been provided, in regard to public debtors, that
where an indulgence has been granted to inch a debtor, by extending the time of
payment, his surety may, alter the time of payment has elapsed, or been extended
by the legislature, call for new security, and if it be not given, may proceed by
execution.—November, 1787, ch. 40, not in not in Kilty, but still in force..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
