Sumner Phosphate Co. v. Jarecki Chemical Co.

Citations

• 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 286

Syllabus

<p>EVIDENCE — PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.</p> <p>1. Amendment of Answer Denied for Laches in Making Application.</p> <p>A surety company’s application to amend its answer admitting execution of the bond set forth in the petition and sued on, to deny the bond because ef alterations therein, comes too late upon trial nearly three years after answer filed during which period depositions were taken upon notice to the surety and the original bond éxhibited; especially since to interpolate the condition in the bond alleged to be altered would have the effect of making the bond and contract inconsistent.</p> <p>2. Failure of Payee to Notify Surety of Defaults of Principal as to Part of Contract Terms no Release as to Defaults Duly Noticed.</p> <p>Failure of the payee of a bond for performance of a contract to notify the surety of defaults by the principal as to part of the contract does not operate as a release of the surety, in absence of actual prejudice shown, as to defaults for which notice was duly given.</p> <p>3. Slight Deviations in Performance of Contract Terms not Affecting Period of Liability do not Release Surety.</p> <p>Slight deviations, as to amount and time of delivery of contract article, by reguest of payee of bond securing contract, not affecting the period of alleged liability, do not release surety.</p> <p>4. Admission or Evidence or Market Value.</p> <p>Admission of evidence of market value of subject of contract at other nearby points to be considered in absence of market value at stipulated place of delivery is not prejudicial to interests of surety on bond in action thereon.</p> <p>[Syllabus approved by the court.]</p>