Case Name: PERRY v. CARNEAL AND WRIGHT
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-04
Citations: 1 Wright 197
Docket Number: 
Parties: PERRY v. CARNEAL AND WRIGHT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
PERRY v. CARNEAL AND WRIGHT.
Promissory note — part payment — discharge of an endorser — liability of the maker — buying peace.
The holder of a note may discharge an endorser to a note, without affecting the liability of prior endorser.
The amount paid by a junior endorser, to buy his peace of the holder, cannot be inquired into, except intended as payment pro tanto on the note, and if so paid, the maker would be liable to the endorser for the amount paid by him, and to the holder of the note for the balance.
Any wrong m the transactions between the holder and endorser is not to b®, inquired into between the holder and maker.
In Chancery. The ease made is this: The complainant endorsed certain notes, given to him by Dodge, to Spencer, and Spencer endorsed them over to Carneal. Dodge, the maker, failed, and Carneal afterwards agreed with Spencer, for a certain sum, which was-paid him, to release him from responsibility, and look only to Perry. Subsequent to this, Carneal and Perry settled, and Perry paid him for the whole of the notes in property and contracts, some of which are now outstanding. The complainant claimed that Carneal was guilty of fraud in not disclosing his transaction with Spencer; that the sum paid by Spencer was in part discharge of the note, of which he had a right to an account, and the benefit, and to have the over-plus repaid to him. He prays an injunction against collecting the outstanding contracts.
Starr, Hammond and Chester, for the complainant.
King, Storer and Fox, for the defendants.

Opinion:
*LANE, J.
gave the opinion of the Court. This bill must be dismissed. The holder of a note may release a junior endorser,, without affecting his claim against a prior endorser. If the amount paid by Spencer was intended as a payment of the note, the case-would be different; but that is not this case. Spencer merely-bought his peace. If he made a payment, Perry would still be liable for the whole. lie would not be exonerated from liability on the note, but would have to repay Spencer whatever sum he paid to Carnea!, and stand bound to Carneal for the residue. If there be anything wrong here, it is between Spencer and Carneal, in which the complainant has no interest.
Bill dismissed.