majority"> *86 ClaRK, O. J.

The only question presented is whether the quia timet notice under C. S., 3967, would relieve the defendants of their obligation as endorsers of a note, the makers of which were nonresidents.

Independently of this statute, “Forbearance or delay in collecting from the principal debtor furnishes no ground on which the surety can ask for exoneration.” Bank v. Homesley, 99 N. C., 531.

When the creditor fails to bring suit against the principal upon due notice by the surety or endorsers, there is an implied agreement to forbear which discharges the surety. On the face of the note here sued on there is an express waiver by the endorsers of any extension of time granted the principal, and this waiver denies him the right to invoke the statute, which raises only an implied extension of time to the principal. Since the waiver excuses an express agreement, it necessarily waives any implied agreement that can be inferred from the statute.

The statute requires a creditor to bring suit in “the appropriate court” (C. S., 3967), and to “use all reasonable diligence to save harmless the surety or endorsers.” The plaintiff caused summons to issue against the principals in this note upon the demand of defendants that he bring suit against them, but he was unable to obtain service of process and the defendants then alleged that these parties were nonresidents. What greater diligence could the plaintiff use? The statute does not require that after bringing suit in this jurisdiction the action must abate until he goes to some foreign jurisdiction and brings there another action in which he cannot join the endorsers by reason of their nonresidence in that state. “The fact that a debtor lives in or has removed to another state is a lawful excuse for not instituting an action.” 27 A. & E., (2 ed.), 515. It is immaterial whether the plaintiff is a resident of this State or not.

The defendants did not invoke the statute until after this suit was brought, although it is admitted in the pleading that demand had been made on them for payment of the note. Of course, they were in danger of loss unless they paid the note and j>roceeded against the principals. They assumed that danger when they endorsed the note and after suit was brought against them it was too late to serve notice under the statute.

Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress