Case Name: LOUISA P. CHARD and GEORGE A. GANE, as Administrators, etc., with the Will Annexed of RUFUS C. PALMER, Deceased, Appellants, v. CORNELIA HAMILTON, as Administratrix, etc., with the Will Annexed of ELISHA W. ENSIGN, Deceased, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-03
Citations: 63 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 259
Docket Number: 
Parties: LOUISA P. CHARD and GEORGE A. GANE, as Administrators, etc., with the Will Annexed of RUFUS C. PALMER, Deceased, Appellants, v. CORNELIA HAMILTON, as Administratrix, etc., with the Will Annexed of ELISHA W. ENSIGN, Deceased, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.
Judges: Dwight, P. J., concurred
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 63
Pages: 259–267

Head Matter:
LOUISA P. CHARD and GEORGE A. GANE, as Administrators, etc., with the Will Annexed of RUFUS C. PALMER, Deceased, Appellants, v. CORNELIA HAMILTON, as Administratrix, etc., with the Will Annexed of ELISHA W. ENSIGN, Deceased, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.
An obligor who is, in fast, ¡a surety only — on his death his estate is discharged from liability.
Where one of three obligors upon a bond, executed before the enactment of section 7S8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has no beneficial interest therein or in the moneys secured thereby, or in any of the dealings of the parties thereto leading up to its execution, and is a surety merely, and is known to be such by the obligee, and has not been secured by his principals in any respect, his estate, upon his death before the death of the principals, becomes discharged from any liability under such bond in equity as well as at law. (Corlett, J., dissenting.)
Appeal by plaintiffs, as administrators, etc., from so much and such parts only of the judgment entered, in the above-entitled action upon the report and direction of the referee therein, in the .office of the clerk of Chautauqua county on the 29th day of August, 1889, as awards judgment dismissing the complaint in the said action, in favor of the said defendant Cornelia Hamilton, as administratrix,, etc., of Elisha W. Ensign, deceased.
Samuel J. Orooles and Frank G. Ferguson, for the appellants.
Sherman S. Rogers, for the respondent.

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, as collateral security to which such mortgage was. given, was executed by Charles Ensign, Elisha W. Ensign and Geoi-ge W. Holt to Kufus C. Palmer, 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 was as follows: " For which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, firmly by these presents." "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 Kufus C. Palmer, his executors, administrators or assigns, the just and full sum of fifteen thousand dollars in one year from the date hereof, with the interest, payable semi-annually, without fraud or delay, then the above obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue." Upon the face of this instrument the obligation of the promisors 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.
If such a point were made, it would be untenable. (Waters v. Riley, 2 Harr. & G., 305; Bishop v. Church, 2 Ves., 100; Pickersgill v. Lahens, 15 Wall., 140; Richardson v. Horton, 6 Beav., 185.) See, also, as inferentially containing the same principle, Simpson v. Vaughan (2 Atk., 31); Thomas v. Frazer (3 Ves., 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 Chitty's 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 seventeenth 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 Rufus C. Palmer to the effect that the obligor should be bound as surety only for Charles Ensign and George W. Iiolt, 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. IToit to tire 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 Rufus 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 section 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 the 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 having 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., concurred