Case Name: Louisa P. Chard et al., Adm'rs, App'lts, v. Cornelia A. Hamilton, Adm'rx, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-04-11
Citations: 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 594
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louisa P. Chard et al., Adm’rs, App’lts, v. Cornelia A. Hamilton, Adm’rx, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 30
Pages: 594–600

Head Matter:
Louisa P. Chard et al., Adm’rs, App’lts, v. Cornelia A. Hamilton, Adm’rx, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,
Filed April 11, 1890.)
Foreclosure—Partees—Liability oe • unsecured surety discharged by HIS DEATH.
Defendant's intestate in 1872 signed with others a bond in the usual fora, binding the obligors, their heirs, executors, etc. He died before the other obligors. In an action to foreclose the mortgage securing such bond the referee found that there was no agreement that intestate should be bound as surety only, but also found that he executed the bond solely lor the accommodation of the others, and that the consideration was a balance due from the other obligors on a sale to them of property. Held, that the obligation was a joint one, and that as the law stood at that time his liability ceased at his death; that as he had no beneficial interest in the bond and was a surety only, to the knowledge of the obligee, and was not secured, he was, by his death before his principals, discharged of any liability in equity as well as in law.
(Corlbtt, J., dissents.)
Appeal from so much of the judgment, entered in Chautauqua county upon the report of a referee, as dismissed the complaint as to the defendant, Cornelia A. Hamilton.
Samuel J. Crooks and Frank C. Ferguson, for app’lts; Sherman S. Foyers, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Macomber, J.
The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage executed by George W. Holt and his wife Amelia, upon certain premises in the village of Westfield, and for the recovery of any deficiency which might arise upon the sale of such mortgaged premises. Judgment was sought, not only against the personal representatives of Holt and of Charles Ensign, but also against this respondent, Cornelia A. Hamilton, as the personal representative of Elisha W. Ensign.
The bond, for which such mortgage was given as collateral security, was executed by Charles Ensign and Elisha W. Ensign and George W. Holt to Rufus C. PalméT, the appellants' intestate, on the 1st day of June, 1872, and was conditioned for the payment by the obligors of $15,000 in one year from its date with interest. All of the parties to the bond are dead, Elisha W. Ensign having died before either of the others. The referee dismissed the complaint on the ground, as stated in his opinion, that the estate of Elisha W. Ensign was discharged, at law, by his decease, and, inasmuch as he had no interest in the consideration of the bond, that he was in fact merely a surety; and that there was no moral obligation resting upon his representative to pay any deficiency which might arise upon the sale of the mortgaged premises. The obligatory part of the bond is as follows: " For which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators firmly by these presents." * -x " The condition of this obligation is such that if the above bounden Charles Ensign, Elisha W. Ensign and George W. Holt, their heirs, executors or administrators shall well and truly pay or cause to be paid unto the above-mentioned Rufus 0. Palmer, his executors, administrators or assigns, the just and full sum of fifteen thousand dollars, in one year from the date hereof, with interest, payable semi-annually, without fraud or delay, then the above obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue."
Hpon the face of this instrument the obligation of the promissors therein was joint and not several. Wood v. Fisk, 63 N. Y., 245.
. The words binding the executors and administrators of the obligors are of no moment in the construction of the instrument, and no point is made by the appellants' counsel that it was intended thereby to charge, at law, the estate of Elisha W. Ensign in case he should die before the others.
H such a point were made it would be untenable. Waters v. Riley, 2 Harr. & G., 305 ; Bishop v. Church, 2 Vesey, Sen., 100 ; Rickersgill v. Lahens, 15 Wall., 140; Richardson v. Horton, 6 Beavan, 185. See also, as inferentially containing the same principle : Simpson v. Vaughan, 2 Atk., 31; Thomas v. Frazer, 3 Vesey, 399 ; Burn v. Burn, id., 573; Sumner v. Powell, 2 Mer., 30.
As the rule stood at the time of the execution of this instrument the liability, at law, on the part of the estate of Elisha W. Ensign, ceased at his death, and the only obligation for the entire debt rested thereafter, at law, upon the- surviving obligors. Pomeroy's Eq. Jur., § 409; 2 Ghitty Cont. , 1411; 1 Parson's Cont., 30, and the cases there cited and considered.
As this case comes up upon the judgment roll only, the appeal must be determined by the sufficiency of the findings, in any view which may be taken of them,, to warrant the judgment pronounced. Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Barnard, 96 N. Y., 525. There is an apparent discrepancy or contradiction between the seventeenth and eighteenth findings, on the one hand, and the twenty-first and twenty-second findings on the other. By the seven teenth and eighteenth findings the referee holds that there is no evidence in the case that any agreement was entered into between Elisha W. Ensign and* Bnfus C. Palmer to the effect that the obligor should be bound as surety only for Charles Ensign and George W. Holt, or that Elisha W. Ensign intended to be bound in any other capacity than as principal on such bond. But by the twenty-first finding it is asserted that the bond in suit was executed by Elisha W. Ensign solely for the accommodation and benefit of Charles Ensign and George W. Holt, and, by the twenty-second finding, that the consideration of the bond was a balance of money due from Charles Ensign and George W. Holt to the obligee, the plaintiffs' intestate, upon the sale by him to Charles Ensign and George W. Holt as copartners of his interest in the propeller " Colorado," and for moneys borrowed by them as such copartners from the obligee, all of which facts, the referee further finds, were known to the said Palmer at the time of the execution of the bond.
Under these findings Bnfus C. Palmer must be deemed to be conclusively charged with actual knowledge that the principals upon the bond were Charles Ensign and George W. Holt, and that Elisha W. Ensign was a surety only. This fact-enables the personal representative of Elisha W. Ensign to interpose a complete defense to the claim made by the plaintiffs in this action, and she is not relegated to a mere right of action over against the estates of the two principals. Richardson v. Draper, 87 N. Y., 337.
There appears, therefore, no equity existing in -behalf of the appellants by which the estate of the surety, who had died before his principals, should be charged in this action, inasmuch as the instrument was executed before the passage of § 758 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Elisha W. Ensign, not having any beneficial interest in the bond, or in any of the dealings of the parties leading up to its execution, and being but a surety merely, to the knowledge of the obligee, and not having been secured by his principals in any respect, was, by his death before his principals, discharged of any liability in equity as well as in law. Getty v. Binsse, 49 N. Y., 385 ; Wood v. Fisk, 63 id., 245; Risley v. Brown, 67 id., 160. The plaintiffs have failed to show that the estate of Elisha W. Ensign should be charged for the default of his principals.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Dwight, P. J., concurs.