Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 Mo. 464

Peters v. Linenschmidt

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1874

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1874-10-15

<p>Per Curiam.</p> <p>1, Bills and Notes — Sureties—Notice to holder to me principal — Due diligence— Rights of surety. — Under the statute concerning sureties and their discharge (Wagn. Stat., 1302 et seq.) the creditor who has been notified, as provided in section 1, must do two tilings ; first, he must commence suit against the principal debtor within thirty days ; second, he must prosecute his suit with due diligence, in the ordinary course of law, to judgment and execution, or else the surety, who may be joined in the action with his principal, will be discharged. Due diligence in the prosecution of the suit is just as essential as commencement within the time limited, in order to fix the liability of the surety after such notice. If the creditor brings such suit and fails to obtain service on the principal at the first term, he should take out an alias summons to the next term, and then under Wagn. Stat., (1010, $ 20, ) he would be entitled to judgment against the surety in case service was not had on the principal, unless the surety should consent to further delay.</p> <p>Per Napton, Judge, Dissentng.</p> <p>1. Bills and Notes — Surety, action against. — The creditor, under the statute, has a right to sue both principal and surety ; and when the summons against the principalis returned mo» «sí, he has a right to dismiss, as to the principal, and proceed against the surety alone.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1993

5 state decisions

101874188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Napton, Judge,

¶1delivered tbe dissenting opinion.

¶2I do not concur in this opinion. As the creditor had a right under the statute to sue both principal and surety, and did so, and the process against the principal was returned “non est,” the plaintiff had a right to dismiss as to the one not served, and take his judgment against the defendant served. He had prosecuted with due diligence and according to law. He might have continued until the next term, if he desired a judgment against the party not served, but he was not obliged to do so. Before the next term the surety might fail, and thus he would lose his debt.

/58/mo/464 · .json · Public domain