Huddleston v. Francis

Citations

• 124 Ill. 195
• 16 N.E. 243

Syllabus

<p>1. Surety—want of diligence in presenting claim against the estate of principal—release of surety—the statute construed. Under the act of March 4, 1869, the failure of the payee or holder of a joint note to present the same against the estate of the principal maker, in case of his death, within two years after the grant of letters of administration, operated to discharge and release absolutely the sureties in such note, from liability for any part thereof.</p> <p>2. The proviso to the act of March 4, 1869, relating to the release of sureties, was not intended to preserve to the holder of a joint note any •cause of action against the sureties, when he failed to present the same against the estate of the principal maker within two years from the grant •of letters. If presented and allowed, and not paid in full, then the sureties were liable for the deficit, and they might be sued before the expiration of the two years.</p> <p>3. Statute—office and effect of a proviso. A proviso in a statute is to be strictly construed, and it takes no case out of the enacting clause which is not fairly within the terms of the proviso. Its office, generally, is either to except something from the enacting clause, to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of its extending to cases not intended to be included.</p>