From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steele v. Carver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 1, 1899
46 App. Div. 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Carver v. Steele, 116 Cal. 116 [47 P. 1007, 58 Am. St. Rep. 156], where it was claimed the mortgagee by his failure to foreclose his mortgage lien discharged the endorsers of the note, it was held: "In general, unless some agreement or special circumstance impose diligence upon the creditor as a duty, he does not, by mere failure to pursue the person primarily liable, discharge the guarantor, surety or endorser, even though his passivity in this regard may result in barring his remedy against the original debtor.

Summary of this case from Bank of America Etc. Assn. v. Goldberg
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

December Term, 1899.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.

Summaries of

Steele v. Carver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 1, 1899
46 App. Div. 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)

In Carver v. Steele, 116 Cal. 116 [47 P. 1007, 58 Am. St. Rep. 156], where it was claimed the mortgagee by his failure to foreclose his mortgage lien discharged the endorsers of the note, it was held: "In general, unless some agreement or special circumstance impose diligence upon the creditor as a duty, he does not, by mere failure to pursue the person primarily liable, discharge the guarantor, surety or endorser, even though his passivity in this regard may result in barring his remedy against the original debtor.

Summary of this case from Bank of America Etc. Assn. v. Goldberg

In Carver v. Steele, the court expressed the general rule as follows (116 Cal. 119, [58 Am. St. Rep. 156, 47 P. 1008]): "In general, unless some agreement or special circumstance imposes diligence upon the creditor as a duty, he does not, by mere failure to pursue the person primarily liable, discharge the guarantor, surety or indorser, even though his passivity in this regard may result in barring his remedy against the original debtor."

Summary of this case from Duerr v. Sloan

In Carver v. Steele, 116 Cal. 116, 119, [58 Am. St. Rep. 156, 47 P. 1007], the court said: "In general, unless some agreement or special circumstance imposes diligence upon the creditor as a duty, he does not, by mere failure to pursue the person primarily liable, discharge the guarantor, surety, or indorser, even though his passivity in this regard may result in barring his remedy against the original debtor."

Summary of this case from Boschetti v. Morton

In Carver v. Steele, 116 Cal. 116, 47 P. 1007, 58 Am.St.Rep. 156, it is said that the rule is that the creditor loses no right against the indorser, whose liability has become fixed, by simple failure to enforce his lien against property mortgaged for security of the debt.

Summary of this case from First Nat. Bank v. Powell
Case details for

Steele v. Carver

Case Details

Full title:Lydia L. Steele, Respondent, v. William H. Carver, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 1, 1899

Citations

46 App. Div. 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)
61 N.Y.S. 1149

Citing Cases

Jeppesen v. Rexburg State Bank

One not otherwise a party to a note who signs his name on the back thereof without condition or…

Withers v. Bousfield

By its various transitions the contract of guaranty in this case became an absolute undertaking to pay the…

18 Citing Cases