Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 N.C. 404

Thompson v. Sanders

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 15, 1839

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1839-12-15

Assumpsit brought to recover of the defendant contribution as a co-surety, tried before his Honor Judge Saunders, at Onslow, on the last spring circuit. On the trial, the case was, that a note had been discounted at the Newbern Branch of the State Bank, of which the following is a true copy: Neiobern, Feb. 6th, 1833. “$889: 29-100.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1874

1 state decisions

Relies on Harris v. Warner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1839-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Daniel, Judge.

¶1Was Sanders a co-surety with Thompson and Pettaway for Rhodes, the principal in the note?— Where a party signs a note as the surety of another, and subsequently a third person also affixes his name as a maker, adding to his signature the words, “surety to the above parties,” the first surety, although he pays the note, cannot compel contribution against the second surety, unless it is made satisfactorily to appear that the second surety intended to place himself in the relation of co-surety with the first surety. Harris v. Warner, 13 Wend. 400. If the makers of this note all signed in the presence of each other, and there was no agreement or understanding on the subject of liability among them, then Saunders signing last on the paper, with the words, “ surety to the above” added to his name, was strong evidence, we think, that he did not intend to be considered as a co-surety, but only a guarantor of the paper to the Bank. We are of the opinion that the judge erred in charging the jury, that the defendant, under the state of the facts, as existed before him, was a co-surety, and bound to contribute. There must be a new trial.

¶2Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

/20/nc/404 · .json · Public domain