Case Name: REDDISH'S EXECUTORS v. PENTHEUSE, ET. AL.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-05
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 538
Docket Number: 
Parties: REDDISH’S EXECUTORS v. PENTHEUSE, ET. AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
REDDISH’S EXECUTORS v. PENTHEUSE, ET. AL.
Joint note — principal and surety — giving time to principal — consent of the surety in the note.
Where several sign a note jointly, if. is competent to show that some signed as principal debtors, and others as sureties.
If timebegiven to the principal debtor without the consent of the surety, it discharges the surety.
But if the note contain a stipulation for giving further time-on paying interest in advance, that is a written consent by the sureties, that time may be given according to its stipulations.
Assumpsit on a note executed by the defendants jointly, for the sum of five hundred dollars, payable in thirty days, with a stipulation to pay fifteen dollars in advance for every thirty days the payment’should be continued beyond that time. Pleas, first, the general issue — second, that Watson, one of the signers of the note, as to whom the process is returned not found was the principal debtor, and the defendants his sureties; and that the plaintiff gave Watson further time to pay without the consent or knowledge of the defendants. Upon this plea issue is joined.
On trial the note was read in evidence, with an endorsement upon it, that the plaintiff had received $101 24 of the principal, and $15 for extending the time of payment for thirty days. The cause was argued to the jury, by
Fates and N. Wright, for the plaintiff, and
Fox and 'Stoi-er, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Wright, J.
to the jury. The first issue presents the. single question, whether the defendants executed the note read in evidence. There is no dispute but that on this issue your verdict should be for the plaintiffs.
The second issue raises two questions: first, was Watson the principal debtor, and the other signers of the note his sureties? Second, did the plaintiffs give time to Watson to pay the money, beyond that stipulated in the note, without the consent of the sureties? All the signers of the note, appear on its face as principals— it is their joint note. The defendants undertake to prove to you, that Watson was the principal debtor, and the other signers only security,and thegiving time to the principal debtor without their consent. Our law permits them to do so, and if the evidence does not satisfy of both these points, their defence fails altogether. The endorsement is relied upon to establish both propositions. It shows that further time of thirty days was given. The only remaining question is, was this time given wjthoufc. thjmonsent of the defendants? In the body of this not^S^^rfnA^^jÉir consent or stipulation, that the payee may days at a time, upon receiving fifteen dollarsYfin advanc^|im|i\|hat this may be continued at the pleasure of te. This is' the legal construction of the note,fend therefore»the ©foe given, which is shown by the endorsement,wa|i3ím»MffiyTmb¡fent of the defendants, according to their written^ag^ggneofewe*^
Verdict for the plaintiffs. — ReservedYto the Court in Bank on the question of interest: (See 6 O. R. 510.)