Nisbet against Smith and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 1789 |
| Date | 12 March 1789 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 317
LINCOLN'S INN HALL
[579] nisbet against smith and Others. [1785 & 1789.] A creditor giving the principal debtor further time for payment, releases the surety.(l)- In Court, Easter 1785. Lincoln's Inn Hall, 12th March 1789. William Maynard being seised of a plantation, &c., called New River Estate, in the island of Nevis, by indentures 17th and 18th August 1767, granted the same in mortgage to William Blomberg, Esquire, for securing the sum of £5000, and interest. This estate wasafterwards charged with the balance of a current account between William Maynard and Messieurs Mitts and Swanston. On the 18th of May 1775, William Maynard borrowed of Ann Blomberg (his daughter, widow and administratrix of the said William Blomberg} £6000, and charged the same by deed of that date, and further secured the same by his bond. Mrs. Blomberg soon afterwards intermarried with the plaintiff, who having considerable estates in Jamaica, subject to an incumbrance of £6500 to the defendant Culling Smith, proposed to release his right to the above sums of £5000 and £6000, making together £11,000, on having his estates disencumbered of the sum of £6500, which it was indebted to the defendant Culling Smith; and, accordingly, by indentures, April the 14th, 1779, between the plaintiffs Nisbet and his wife of the 1st part, defendant Smith of the 2d part, and defendant Josiah Maynard of the 3d part, reciting the above, and that Josiah Maynard had agreed to pay the said sum of £6500, so remaining due from plaintiff Nisbet to defendant Smith, he, the said plaintiff, agreeing that the estates comprised in the said indentures of the 17th and 18th of August 1767, and the 18th of May 1785, should be transferred to defendant Smith for better securing in the first place, the payment of the said £6500, and interest, and, subject thereto, to the said Josiah Maynard, he paying the said sum of £6500, and interest, to the said Culling Smith, on or before the lith of April 1783, subject to such equity of redemption as should be subsisting thereon : and reciting that the said Josiah Maynard had, in pursuance of his said agreement, entered into a bond, dated the 8th of April, then instant, together with the said Walter Nisbet, to the said Culling Smith, in the penal sum of £13,000, for payment of the said £6500, to the said Culling Smith, on or before the Hth of April 1783 ; and, for indemnifying the said Walter Nisbet from the payment of the said sum of £6500, he, the said Josiah Maynard, by his other bond, dated the same 8th of April, became bound [580] to the said Walter Nisbet in the sum of £13,000, conditioned to be void on payment by Josiah Maynard to the said Culling Smith, 318 NISBET V. SMITH 2 BRO. 0. 0. 581, of the said £6500...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearl v Deacon
...likewise the Plaintiff as surety. They cited Bowker v. Bull (1 Simons (N. S.) 29); Capel v. Butler (2 Sim. & S. 457); Nisbet v. Smith (2 Bro. C. C. 579); Boultbee v. Stubbs (18 Ves. 20); Eyre v. Bartrop (3 Mad. 221); Reade v. Loumdes (23 Beav. 361); Calvert v. London Dock Company (2 Keen, 6......
-
Bonar (Trustee of the Edinburgh and Leith Bank), - Appellant; William Macdonald and Others, - Respondents
...is surety to a definite, not an indefinite engagement." His Lordship there referred to and approved of the decision in Nisbet v. Smith (2 Bro. C. C. 579), where the creditor sued the principal, but, without the knowledge of the surety, took a warrant of attorney from him, and gave him time,......
-
Mayhew v Crickett
...& Pull. 61. Clark v. Devlin, 3 Bos. & Pull. 363. Gould v. Robson, 8 East, 576. Bees v. Berrington, 2 Ves. Jun. 540. Nisbet v. Smith, 2 Bro. C. C. 579. Law v. The East India Company, 4 Ves. 824. Wright v. Simpson, G. Ves. 714. Ex parte Gifford, Ibid. 807, Boultbee v. Stubbs, 18 Ves. 20, 182 ......
-
"Vreede"-(Hoffker)
...a limited period, and the time has been extended by the other parties without his consent or knowledge. In the case of Ntsbet and Smith (2 Bro. C. C. 579), ulterior tune was given against the express directions of the surety, and Lord Thurlow, relying upon that ground, held him to be discha......