From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stuart v. Carter

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Jul 26, 1978
360 So. 2d 1234 (Miss. 1978)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Stuart v. Carter, 79 W. Va. 92, 70 S.E. 537, L.R.A. 1918D, 1070, the only question was whether the plaintiff could sue on a guaranty bond before he had actually paid liens against the property, and, since he had sued to recover only the amount of the lien, the measure of damages was not involved.

Summary of this case from Trainor Co. v. ÆTNA Cas. Surety Co.
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

No. 50328.

July 26, 1978.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; William F. Coleman, J.

Edward L. Cates, John C. Underwood, Jr., Jackson, for appellants.

Green, Cheney, Hughes McKibben, Charles E. Hughes, Jackson, for appellees.

Before PATTERSON, C.J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Stuart v. Carter

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Jul 26, 1978
360 So. 2d 1234 (Miss. 1978)

In Stuart v. Carter, 79 W. Va. 92, 70 S.E. 537, L.R.A. 1918D, 1070, the only question was whether the plaintiff could sue on a guaranty bond before he had actually paid liens against the property, and, since he had sued to recover only the amount of the lien, the measure of damages was not involved.

Summary of this case from Trainor Co. v. ÆTNA Cas. Surety Co.

In Stuart v. Carter, 79 W. Va. 92, 90 S.E. 537, L.R.A. 1918D, 1070, this Court held in point 2 of the syllabus that on a contract of indemnity against liability, a right of action arises immediately on the nonperformance of the thing the covenantor bound himself to do, or the nonpayment of the money he bound himself to pay for the exoneration of the indemnitee, when it became due and payable, and also held in point 6 of the syllabus that money due on a bond with collateral condition may be recovered by notice of motion for judgment.

Summary of this case from Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Kelly

In Stuart v. Carter, 79 W. Va. 92, 90 S.E. 537-39, L.R.A. 1918 D, 1070, it was held that motion for judgment will lie to assert liability for money due on a bond with collateral conditions.

Summary of this case from Hensley v. Copley

In Stuart v. Carter, 79 W. Va. 92, 90 S.E. 537, 538, wherein it was held that "money due on a bond with collateral condition may be recovered by motion, under sec. 6, ch. 121, of the Code" (now 56-2-5, Official Code), Judge Poffenbarger stated: "A claim for mere damages for the breach of a contract is not within the statute under which the proceeding was instituted.

Summary of this case from Bush v. Carden

In Stuart v. Carter, supra, we have an express holding that it is not necessary in such a motion to allege that the note has not been paid.

Summary of this case from Peoples State Bank of Crown Point v. Jeffries
Case details for

Stuart v. Carter

Case Details

Full title:Archie STUART et ux. v. J.E. CARTER et al

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi

Date published: Jul 26, 1978

Citations

360 So. 2d 1234 (Miss. 1978)

Citing Cases

Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Kelly

The plaintiff attached to the notice and filed, as an exhibit, a photostatic copy of the written guaranty on…

State v. Rogers

In Wilson v. Dawson, 96 Va. 687, 32 S.E. 461, it was held: "Damages for an injury resulting from a breach of…

18 Citing Cases