Recent Cases [stub]

1914 University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... ntent at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact RECENT CASES. BTLLS AND NOTES-EXTENSION OF TIME-EVIDENCE- The plaintiff bank discounted a note and brought action against the second indorser. The defendant claimed to have been discharged by an extension of time through acceptance of interest from the first indorser after maturity. Evidence excluded. Held: It was not error to exclude the evidence offered since it did not appear that the payments were sufficient to have extended the note beyond its maturity. Bank v. Wester, 242 Pa. 128, 88 Atl. Rep. 9II (1913). The general rule is that when, for a consideration, an extension of time is given to the principal without the consent of the surety, the latter is thereby discharged. Stevens v. Oaks, 58 Mich. 343, 25 N. W. Rep. 309 (I885); Van Horn v. Dick, 151 Pa. 341 (I892). But in order to relieve a surety the agreement for an extension of time must be clear and distinct and upon good consideration. Bank v. Le Grand, 103 Pa. 309, 49 Am. Rep. I26 (I883). Mere delay, without consideration, is not enough to discharge the surety. McLemore v. Powell, 12 Wheat. 554 (1827); Schaffstall v. McDaniel, I52 Pa. 598 (I893). But an extension given in consideration of the maker giving another note discharges the surety. Bishop's Estate, I95 Pa. 85, 2 Atl. Rep. 582 (900oo). So also an extenson of time will be inferred where the holder accepts from the maker a check dated six days after the maturity of the note. Walters v. Swallow, 6 Whart. 446 (Pa. I84I). It seems to be well settled that an express extension of time in consideration of interest paid in advance will discharge the surety. Hamilton v. Winterrowd, 43 Ind. 393 (I873); Hallock v. Yankey, 102 Wis. 41, 78 N. W. Rep. 156, 72 Am. St. Rep. 86I (I899). But there is a split of authority on the point whether the mere payment of interest in advance is sufficient evidence from which a jury may find an extension of time. The affirmative view is maintained in Bank v. Truesdale, 55 Barb. 602 (N. Y. 1884); Siebeneck v. Bank, IIi Pa. I87, 2 Atl. Rep. 485 (I886). The negative view is supported in Bank v. Parsons, 138 Mass. 53 (I884); Bank v. Moorman, 38 Mo. App. 484 (I889). There is also a difference of opinion as to whether a promise to pay interest at the expiration of an extension of time in consideration for the promise to extend is binding and so discharges the surety. The affirmative of this proposition is maintained in Dodgson