Security Trust & Savings Bank v. Ravel

Citations

• 24 N.M. 221
• 173 P. 545

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Where a trial amendment is improperly allowed, under Code 1915, § 4162, it is the duty of the complaining party to either object to the filing or to move to strike it out, and, if his motion is ruled against him, to stand thereon and appeal; and, though the amendment changes the cause of action and is a clear departure, a party pleading over and going to trial thereon waives his right to object. P. 224</p> <p>2. Where one unconditionally guaranteed payment of a note, the law of Texas, where the guaranty was executed, is that the extension of the time for payment of the note, not predicated upon an agreement does not operate to discharge the guarantor. P. 224</p> <p>3. In an action against the unconditional guarantor of a note, evidence held not to show any valid extension of the time for payment of the note, such as would release the guarantor.</p> <p>P. 224</p> <p>4. In such action, where there was no evidence to show an extension of time for payment, an instruction based on that theory was erroneous. P. 224</p> <p>5. The mere giving of time to a creditor, without the knowledge and consent of the guarantor, and without a binding, valid agreement to that effect for a definite time and for a consideration, will not discharge the surety. P. 224</p> <p>6. Where it is impossible for the Supreme Court to say whether the jury considered or based its verdict upon an improperly submitted issue, the cause must he reversed and remanded to the district court, with direction to grant appellant a new trial. P. 226</p>