Case Name: William H. Ward v. William Redden
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1891-06-12
Citations: 39 Ill. App. 643
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Ward v. William Redden.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
William H. Ward v. William Redden.
Principal and Surety—Action to Recover Amount Paid by Surety— Limitations—New Promise.
In an action brought to recover a sum of money paid by plaintiff as surety upon a promissory note for defendant, this court holds that the evidence fails to establish a new promise, the defense being the statute of limitations, and that the judgment for the plaintiff can not stand.
[Opinion filed June 12, 1891.]
In error to the Circuit Court of Cumberland County; the Hon. W. C. Jones, Judge, presiding.
Mr. W. S. Everhart, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Peter A. Brady, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Wall, J.
This was an action of assumpsit to recover a sum of money paid by plaintiff as surety on a promissory note for defendant.
The statute of limitations, five years, was interposed as a defense, to which the plaintiff replied that the defendant had promised anew within five years.
The verdict was for the plaintiff for $160, and judgment was rendered accordingly.
We have carefully examined the evidence and are of opinion that it wholly fails to establish a new promise. Applying the rule as laid down in this State, we think the judgment should have been for defendant. Keener v. Crull, 19 Ill. 191; Carroll v. Forsyth, 69 Ill. 127; Wachter v. Albee, 80 Ill. 47; Haywood v. Gunn, 4 Ill. App. 161.
_The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.