Court Opinion

ID: 6961467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 01:46:18.042093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:08:27.299025
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Dickey delivered the opinion of the Court: The only question here presented is, whether the plaintiff can maintain this action, on the facts as found by the Appellate Court. No reason is perceived why plaintiff below should not have judgment against the guarantor for the amount due upon the nóte. By the terms of the note it is shown to be due. By the previous rulings of this court the assignment of this note carried with it the guaranty, and vested in the assignee of the note a right to sue upon the guaranty, in his own name. The bidding by the trustee in the name of the creditor, at the sale, was without authority. The deed made by the trustee to the creditor was not accepted, and the making and recording thereof, by the trustee, did not affect the rights of the creditor,—no title passed by the deed. If the defendant, or any one else, needs that cloud upon the title removed, a court of chancery can afford relief. The creditor, however, can not be delayed in the collection of the debt by reason of such embarrassment. The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accord with this opinion. Judgment reversed.