Appeal from the circuit court of Simpson county.

Hon. W. H. Hughes, Judge.

Suit by I. Garner against S. D. Harrison ond others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Appellee, complainant in the court below, filed suit on a promissory, note for three hundred dollars with interest and attorney’s fees, against appellants, S. D. Harrison, Ed Ware, and Dr. L. E. Eobinson. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and the defendants Eobinson and Ware gave notice that they would show that they were sureties only, and that the holder of the note at the request of Harrison, the principal, had extended the note for a valuable consideration without their knowledge or consent, thereby releasing the sureties. Defendant Harrison pleaded payment to the extent of one hundred dollars principal and forty dollars interest. On the trial defendants Ware and Eobinson offered testimony in support of their plea and requested a peremptory instruction as to their liability, which was refused. At a request of plaintiff the court gave the following instructions :

“The court instructs the jury, for the plaintiff, that they must find for the plaintiff in the sum of two hundred dollars and ten per cent, interest on the same from November, 1912; and the court further charges the jury, for the plaintiff, that unless they believe from the evidence that • defendant paid the plaintiff the sum of one hundred dollars principal and interest up to November, 1912, it is their duty to find for the plaintiff in the full amount sued for, to wit, three hundred dollars with interest at ten per cent, per annum from November 1, 1912, to this date, and thirty dollars attorney’s fee, or a total of three hundred and eighty-five dollars.”

The jury returned the verdict for three hundred and eighty-five dollars, and judgment for that amount was rendered jointly against all three defendants, and they appeal.

An agreement by the holder of a note to extend for a definite period the time of payment, in consideration of the promise of the principal debtor to pay interest on the debt during such extension, constitutes a binding contract of forbearance, and will operate to discharge the sureties who do not agree to the extension. Moore v. Bedding, 69 Miss. 841.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress