Case Name: Sommerhill vs. Cartwright
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1846-12
Citations: 7 Hum. 461
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sommerhill vs. Cartwright.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 461–462

Head Matter:
Sommerhill vs. Cartwright.
Where a judgment was rendered against the principal debtor and a surety, and the surety executed his note, with another surety, on condition, that plaintiff in the judgment would assign the judgment to the surety and the surety executed the note and the plaintiff refused to assign the judgment, but entered satisfaction thereof; it is held, that the surety was entitled to a perpetual injunction against the note and the plaintiff entitled to have the satisfaction set aside.
A judgment was rendered for-one hundred and eighty dollars, in favor of Cartwright against Summerhill, Cummings and Goring — Cummings being the principal and the others, sureties.
Summerhill agreed with Cartwright that if he would assign the judgment to him for his indemnity, he (Summerhill) would execute his note with interest added, payable at six months for the amount with a surety. Cartwright agreed to this and William Summerhill with James Summerhill as his surety made the note. Afterwards Cartwright declined assigning the judgment, but proceeded to the docket and entered satisfaction of the judgment thereupon.
Cartwright recovered judgment on the note against William and James Summerhill, and they filed this bill to enjoin the enforcement of it in the Chancery Court at Lebanon.
Chancellor Ridley on the hearing enjoined perpetually the judgment, and the defendant Cartwright appealed.
S. S. Brien, for the complainants.
StoJc.es, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Turley, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case, we think, that the complainants executed the note enjoined, upon the agreement, that the defendant was to assign the judgment, against William Summerhill and others, in which William Summerhill was only security to the demand, upon which the judgment was recovered, for his indemnity, and that this was not done, whereby the benefit intended to be secured to him was lost, and that therefore, the defendant ought not to be permitted to avail himself of any advantage acquired by the execution of the note, but should be left, as he was before its execution.
This will leave him, with his right to have his debt paid, by the enforcement of his judgment, against William Summerhill, Allen Goring and Charles W. Cummings, but the contract by which J. Summerhill, became bound for the debt, being set aside, for a failure of consideration, no benefit has been received under it, and Wm. Summerhill, Allen Goring, and Charles W. Cummings, having sustained no loss, cannot be permitted to avail themselves of the satisfaction of the judgment which was entered from a mistaken supposition, that the execution of the note by Wm. and J. A. Summerhill was available means for its payment.
We are therefore of opinion, that the decree, enjoining the judgment in this case, be affirmed; but modify it, by setting aside, the satisfaction of the original judgment at law so far, as Wm. Summerhill is concerned, which we would also do, as to Allen Goring and Charles W. Cummings, if they were before us, but they not being before us, defendant must be left to such remedy against them, as may be found meet and proper. Decree accordingly.