¶1In Johnston v. Chapman, 3 Penns* Rep. 18, a guarantee was held to be an engagement to pay in default of solvency in the debtor, provided due diligence was used to obtain payment from him; and that merely to demand payment, is not due diligence. Here payment was not even sought for in the lifetime of the drawer, who lived nearly eight years after the note fell due; and this is such gross negligence as to render a resort to the statute of limitations entirely unnecessary. It is impossible to say the money would not have been obtained had the debt been pressed; and to suffer the plaintiff to recover against the guarantee under these circumstances, would expose the latter to loss which was probably produced by the supineness of another.
2 Watts 128
Isett v. Hoge
Decided October 15, 1833
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1833-10-15
• This action was by John Kuhns, executor of Henry Isett deceased, against Thomas Hoge. William Johnston gave his note, under seal, dated the 2d day of ' May 1812, by which he promised to pay to Henry Isett, or order, 300 dollars, twelve months after date, with lawful interest from the date. Appended to the note is the following writing: “ I do hereby guaranty the payment of the above note to the said Henry Isett-. “ Thomas Hoge. “ Test.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1850
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1833-10-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →