Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1853-05-19

Monday.
The court convened at eight O'Clock, A. NJ
present, Hon. A. G. Thurman. Of the Supreme
Court; Hon. R. Hitchcock, and Hon. G. w
3slden, judges of Che COMMON pleas. 10
Frederick Brandt =
re- 10 Error.
Goliah Tedrow.
The facts in this case are as follows On
the 28h Of June, l047, Charles collars bor-
rowod of Tedrow 100, aud gave bis note there
for, with Brandt as security, for the sum of
SiOO, payable one year after date. About five
months after the note became due. collars paid
ten dollars TO Ledrow as interest for the then
current year, credit for the same being en-
tered on the note. Some time in the fall Of
l8I9 a second instalment Of interest Of ten dol
lars was paid and credit therefor entered on
the note. Some three or four months before
the 28th of June, 1850, collars left the coun-
try in embarrassed circumstances, leaving no
thing behind him, out Of which to make the
money due on said note. Soon after the 28th
Of June, 1850, Ledrow brought his suit 10 re-
cover the money of Brandt, before a Justice of
The Peace, and obtained judgment Brandt
appealed to the common pleas, and trial was
had, which resulted again in judgment in fa-
yor of Tedrow. Brandt made motion for a
new trial assigning for reasons -
!, Ist, Because the verdict was against the law.
End, Because the verdict was against the cv-
idenee.
The motion was oyerruled, to which ruling
the counsel for Brandt excepted and brought
this writ to reverse the judgment therein rem
.dered:
EcKIEY q CRosIER, for Brandt,
Insisted that the payment Of interest, in ad-
vance, implied an agreement on the part of
Tedrow to extend the time of payment of the
principal, thereby diSchargng the surety.
VAN BaowN, for Tedrow,
claimed that, nasmuch as there was no express
contract for the extension of time proven, the
right of action was not barred as to Brandt.
: HIrcncocK, j. held that there was not an
/ agreement proven which would at any time
! have barred the right Of the payec of the note
to bring suit thereon, and that unless such were
Tie case, the surety was not discharged. Mere
neglect to bring suit at the time the money be-
came due would not discharge the surety, but
any agreement between the creditor and prin-
. cpal, to extend the time, which bars the cred
= itor Of his right to sue, even for one moment,
will discharge the surety. No such agreement
having been proven in this case, the payee' S
right to recover is unmpaired, and the judg-
ment below must be affirmed.
Judy Norris
The following facts were agreed upon by
counscl; Isaac Kelly and wife borrowed 5000
from the Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co., and
on the end Of Sept, 1853, executed a mort
gage on two 80 acre tracts Of land in Union tp,
Carroll county to secure the payment thereof.
On the 26th April, 1897, Kelly and wife con-
yeyed said lands to Archibald Hunter, subject
came indebted to one VIM. Mafit a judgment
was rendered against him, an execution is is
i sued thereon and one of the tracts was sold tC
Z Ziba Norris for S948, on the Gath Feb, 1910
u to pay said Judgment Norris not being abl
Is to pay for said land, on the 30th April, SAC
Hunter & Norris agreed that if Norris wou
/ pay $3l8 and assume the payment of the lieI
= of the Trust Co., releasing the remaining o.
u acres from said lien, that then the sheriff NIGH
Q make the deed to Norris. Norris paid The
: 1913, and obtained deed. Sometime there
u after Norris executed a note and mortgage OIL
: said lands, to one David Marshall in whicl
c mortgage the wife of Norris did not join. A
: the April term, 1914, n decree was entered OF
:, said mortgage in favor of Marshall, Il the Trus
70 Company, who were made party and fled Al
J. answer in the nature Of a cross bill, and others
t. which decree found that the Trust Co. had
at hen prior to that of Marshall Upon sal
le under this decree, Atwel bought the land,
ID The question raised by the peadings is :
~ Has the petitioner as widow of Ziba Norris
"a = deed, right to dover in the PREMISES
~ TnuRMAN, p. j., held that nasmuch as tn
y decree was in favor of the Trust Co., as we
" as Marshall, that the effect of the sale was tn
" - same as il The proceeding had been original
- commenced by the company. ltisnot pretend
. ed that if the Trust Co. had commenced tn
proceeding, dover could have been recovered
The claimant rests her case on the fact that tn
an premises were sold in proceeding which wa
u, commenced upon an instrument to which sh
~ was not part, namely the mortgage to MAJ
FL shall. If the premises had been sold on
- Judgment at law and the lien of the Trust G,
discharged by application of the purchase me