State ex rel. Wight v. Modrel

Decided October 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1878-10-15

<p>Bonds : sureties, their liabilitibs therbon. In a suit upon an executor’s bond, it is no defense to a surety that he signed the bond upon the parol promise of the executor to procure additional sureties, and furnish the sureties with an indemnity bond. . (Following State to use, See., v. Potter,63 Mo. 212, and Brown v. Baker, 64 Mo. 167.)</p>

Relies on State ex rel. Bothrick v. Potter · State ex rel. Brown v. Baker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1914

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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, J.

¶1This suit is against the sureties on the bond of an executor, and the defense set up in their an*153swers was, that the several sureties “ signed the bond on the parol agreement made at the time by the executor with them, that he would procure other additional sureties, and would also furnish them an indemnity bond.” Such defenses have been decided worthless in the case of the State to use of Bothrick v. Potter, 63 Mo. 212, and State ex rel. J. S. Brown, Admr., v. Baker, Admr., 64 Mo. 167. In accordance with these decisions, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

¶2Eeversed.