¶1The new note given by Percifull as principal, and others as securities, and the payment of the balance due and costs of suit in cash, operated as an extinguishment of the judgment obtained by the bank against him and Anthony as the securities of Royster. Witherly v. Mann, 11 J. R. 513. After the judgment was discharged by Percifull, Anthony became liable as co-security, to contribute his proportion of the debt. Royster having given an indemnity to his securities, did not change the liability. Rochester v. Fish, 17 Mass. 464. Judgment affirmed.
3 Ark. 494
Anthony v. Percifull
Decided January 15, 1848
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1848-01-15
Writ of Error to Pulaski Circuit Court. Assumpsit by Percifull against Anthony, for contribution as co-security of Royster, determined in the Pulaski… Held: hired out, &c., subject to the determination of the suit, and that the case was still pending. That, on the 19th March, 1847, plaintiff brought suit against Royster for the whole amount of said judgment so settled by him to the bank, as security as aforesaid, which suit was still pending in the Pulaski Circuit Court.
Relies on Bachelder v. Fiske
Decided 1848-01-15