Case Name: Langford's Ex'or v. Perrin; Perrins v. Ragland
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1834-12
Citations: 5 Leigh 552
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Langford’s Ex’or v. Perrin. Perrins v. Ragland.
Judges: (Absent Brooke, J.)
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 208–211

Head Matter:
*Langford’s Ex’or v. Perrin. Perrins v. Ragland.
December, 1834,
Richmond.
(Absent Brooke, J.)
Sureties — Contribution among — Case at Bar. — A. B. and C. are sureties for D. in a bond; j udgment is recovered against D. the principal, and the sureties. A. and B. but not against the other surety C. and a fl. fa. being sued out on the judgment, andlevied on the property of D. the principal, be gives a forthcoming bond, in which A. and B. and another-person join him as sureties; execution awarded on such forthcoming bond, is levied on the goods-of A. one of the sureties in the original bond, as, well as in the forthcoming bond: Held, A. has no-right to contribution from C. his co-surety in the original bond.
Same — Same*—What Constitutes Relation of Co-sureties — Case at Bar. — Judgment is recovered, and fl. fa. sued out against D. principal debtor, and A. and B. his sureties; the fl. fa. is levied on the goods of D. the principal, who gives a forthcoming bond, in which A. and B. and another person E. are bound as D.’s sureties; and on execution on the forthcoming bond, E. is compelled to pay the debt; Held, E. is co-surety with A. and B. for D. in th e forthcoming bond, not surety for A. and B. as well as D. and therefore, E. is entitled only to-contribution from A. and B. as co-sureties, not to full indemnity from them as principals.
A bond for 520 dollars was executed by Samuel Perrin, Park Perrin, Henry Perrin, and Sterling Langford, to John Green; the three last obligors being sureties for the first named obligor. The bond was assigned by Green to John Jones, who brought suit upon it, and recovered judgment against Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin (Langford being dead), and sued out a fieri facias agairist the three Perrins, which was levied on two slaves, the property of Samuel Perrin, the principal obligor; who, thereupon, gave a forthcoming bond, for the delivery of the property at the day and place of sale, in which Park and Henry Perrin (his sureties in the original bond, and co-defendants in the execution) and Fendall Ragland joined; the condition of the bond reciting, that Park and Henry Perrin and ^Ragland were sureties tendered by Samuel Perrin. The forthcoming bond was forfeited; and execution having been awarded thereon against Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin and Ragland, Jones sued out a fieri facias against them. This execution was levied on the property of Henry Perrin, and 229 dollars, part of the debt was made by the sale of his property; and then Ragland paid the sheriff the balance of the debt, which was now 400 dollars. By this time, Samuel and Park Perrin had become insolvent.
Henry Perrin made a motion (under the statute 1 Rev. Code, ch. 116, p. 460), against the executor of Langford, one of his co-sureties in the original bond, in the circuit court of Hanover, to recovor one half of the 229 dollars, which Henry Perrin had been compelled to pay under the execution upon the forthcoming bond: alleging, that as Langford was bound in the original bond, with Park Perrin and himself, as sureties for Samuel Perrin, and as Samuel and Park were insolvent, and Henry had paid 229 dollars of the debt, the executor of LangT°r<3 was bound to contribute one half of that sum to him, as his co-surety. Langford’s executor insisted, that the original debt for which he was bound as co-surety with Park and Henry Perrin for Samuel, and the judgment for the same, were absolutely discharged by the forthcoming bond executed by the three Perrins and Ragland, for the forthcoming and delivery of the property of Samuel Perrin, the principal debtor, taken in execution to satisfy the orig-inal judgment; and so Langford’s estate was absolved from all liability on the original bond, and the judgment thereon rendered, and consequently, from any duty to contribute to the sureties in the forthcoming bond. The court held, that Langford’s executor was bound to contribute a moiety of the money which had been levied of Henry Perrin’s property, under the execution upon the forthcoming bond; and gave judgment for Henry Perrin accordingly. Langford’s executor applied to this court for a supersedeas to the judgment; which was awarded.
*Fendall Ragland also made a motion against Samuel, Park, and Henry Perrin, to recover of them, the 400 dollars which he had paid in satisfaction of the balance due upon the execution sued out by Jones, on the forthcoming bond, against Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin, and Rag-land. Ragland insisted, that as the three Perrins were the defendants and debtors against whom the execution on the original judgment was issued, on which the forthcoming bond executed by the three Perrins and Ragland was taken, the Perrins were all principals in the forthcoming bond, and Ragland was their surety; and so they were all three bound to refund to him the 400 dollars he had paid in satisfaction of the balance due on the execution upon the forthcoming bond. Park and Henry Perrin insisted, that though the execution sued out by Jones on his original judgment, was against Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin, it had been in fact levied on the property of Samuel Perrin, the principal debtor, and the forthcoming bond having been given for the delivery of Samuel’s property so taken in execution, Park and Henry Perrin and Ragland were joint and co-suretics for Samuel Perrin in the forthcoming bond; and that, therefore, Park and Henry Perrin were only bound to contribute as co-sureties with Ragland, and not, as principals, to refund him the whole amount he had paid. The circuit court held, that Park and Henry Perrin, as well as Samuel, were principals in the forthcoming bond, and Ragland was tne only surety therein ; and gave judgment for Ragland, accordingly, against Samuel, Park and Henry Perrin, for the whole sum of 400 dollars by him paid, with interest &c. And to this judgment, upon the petition of Park and Henry Perrin, a supersedeas was awarded by this court.
The causes were argued here, together, by Lyons for Langford’s executor the plaintiff in error in the first case, and for Rag-land the defendant in error in the last; and by Scott for Henry Perrin the defendant in error in the first case, and for Park and Henry Perrin the plaintiffs in error in the last.
Sureties — Contribution among. — The principal case was cited with approval on this subject in Harnsberger v. Yancey, 33 Gratt. 540; foot-note to Preston v. Preston, 4 Gratt. 88; Dent v. Wait, 9 W. Va. 46, 48.

Opinion:
*CARR, J.
The judgment in the first of these cases, I^angford's executor against Perrin, is erroneous. The debt for which Langford was bound as surety, was discharged by the levy of the execution sued out for that debt on the property of the principal debtor Samuel Perrin, and the forthcoming bond taken under that execution. Langford was no party to that proceeding; and if we were io hold that he was not discharged, we should put this surety in a strange situation : he was willing to go a certain length; but we should say he shall go all lengths. Suppose that after executing the original bond, he had become aware of his danger, and given notice to the creditor to sue; and when judgment was obtained, he had taken the sheriff along with the execution, shewed him ample property of the principal debtor, and told him, ' 'levy the execution ; I clear my skirts of this business; proceed strictly; sell the property, and make the money." But another friend of the debtor comes, and says, " I will be surety for the forthcoming of the property; let the debtor have it." The surety tells him, "Mark, if you do this, it is at your own hazard; I wash my hands of it; I am now clear, and determined to keep so." Should we suffer this interloper to come upon the surety afterwards, and say, ' 'I have paid this execution; you were once bound for it, and must therefore contribute." Surely not.
Then, as to the other case, Perrins v. Ragland — If we look at it with the strict eye of a common lawyer, deciding on the deed of the parties, in the summary proceeding by motion, there would seem to be but little ground for doubt. Ragland has paid off an execution issued against himself and three others, and now moves to recover the whole sum paid, of the other three as money paid by him on an execution issued on a forthcoming bond executed by them as principals, and by him as their surety. When we look at the forthcoming bond, it recites that an execution had been levied on two slaves the property of Samuel Perrin, and that he being desirous of keeping the same in his possession till the day of sale, had tendered the above bound Park Perrin, Henry Perrin, and Ragland, as sureties for the forthcoming *and delivery thereof &c. And this is signed and sealed by Ragland as well as the rest. Is he not estopped, in this common law, summary proceeding, from contradicting his deed? But suppose not, are not Park and Henry Perrin, in fact and in law, sureties to this forthcoming bond? I think so. It is true, they were principals in the original judgment and execution: but that execution was levied on the property of Samuel Perrin, the true debtor: that levy discharged the execution, at least, until the property was legally disposed of; if sold, the debt was paid; if a forthcoming bond was taken, the execution was satisfied, unless it was quashed. To this forthcoming bond, I do not conceive that Park and Henry Perrin were necessary parties. It was given merely for the forthcoming and delivery of the. property taken; that property was hot theirs; and any sufficient surety for delivery of it was enough. Not being bound to enter into that bond, they might have either refused wholly, or decided to enter merely as sureties for the delivery of the property. And, assuredly, on this motion, they could only be liable in the character they assumed; that is, as co-sureties with this plaintiff.
CABELL and BROOKE, J., concurred.