Case ID: mich_47/html/0499-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Graves, O. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William F. Brion v. James M. Kennedy.
    
      Consideration for security for costs — Intwestfrom beginning of suit.
    
    ¡Security for costs is based on sufficient consideration to sustain it as a common-law obligation wbicb will support an action whether the security was or was not given in the statutory'mode.
    Interest upon an obligation may run from the beginning of suit if the date of a previous demand for payment is not shown.
    Case made from Kent.
    Submitted January 11.
    Decided January 18.
    Assumpsit, begun before a justice, on an undertaking by Kennedy to become surety for costs in behalf of Asa Finch in a suit brought by Finch against Brion. Plaintiff recovered before the justice, but on appeal judgment was given for defendant.
    [Reversed.
    
      Frank L. Oa/rf enter for plaintiff.
    
      Sliter & Rogers for defendant.
   Graves, O. J.

Whether the security for costs sued on ■was given in the mode described in the statute would be important if the question concerned the right to enter judgment on it on motion. But being sued as a common-law •obligation the point relied on is immaterial. There can be no doubt of its validity as a common-law undertaking. The •consideration was sufficient. It was made to enable the plaintiff in that case to go on against the present plaintiff •and it effected the purpose, and the liability was assumed on request and understandingly. The facts found are conclusive •of the right of action and the court erred in ruling to the ■contrary. The judgment must be reversed and one entered here in favor of the plaintiff for $93.98, the amount of the costs covered by the undertaking, with interest from March •8, 1881, at which time this suit was commenced; it appearing that payment was previously demanded but the date of the demand not being shown.

The plaintiff will recover his costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.