Court Opinion

ID: 6905035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:59:02.352279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:18.807183
License: Public Domain

*164Denied November 16, 1915.
On Petition eor Rehearing.
(152 Pac. 497.)
Department 1. .Mr. Justice Burnett delivered the opinion of the court.
4. The defendants Harding, who appealed, were indorsers of the note named in the mortgage foreclosed in this suit. They contend that the sale of the mortgaged premises by the administrator of the deceased maker of the note discharged the principal debtor, and consequently released the indorsers, who were only secondarily liable. They endeavor to work out this result exonerating the maker through some correspondence between the attorney for the estate and the attorney for the plaintiff written prior to the sale, which they say proves that its terms included the assumption by the purchaser of the payment of the note and mortgage involved in this suit. Nothing can be derived from this correspondence beyond negotiation. Except the indorsement of the defendants on the note, no writing appears in evidence signed by anyone agreeing to assume or pay the debt of Stovin, the maker of the note. It is not disclosed that the administrator’s deed which is the culmination of the transaction, and in which all previous bargaining is merged, contains any covenant by the grantee or condition imposed upon her looking to the payment of the indebtedness. In short, the legal effect of the transaction was to convey to Emma B. Thompson the equity of redemption remaining in the estate of the deceased maker of the note. While this might exhaust the estate of Stovin, it did not discharge it. It results in a situation where *165the indorsers must assume their secondary liability. It is a fallacy, then, to argue that the maker was released, and hence that they were discharged.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Affirmed.
Rehearing Denied.
Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice McBride and Mr. Justice Benson concur.