REDDISH'S EXECUTORS v. PENTHEUSE, ET. AL., 1 Ohio Ch. 538

Wright, J. to the jury. The first issue presents the. single question, whether the defendants executed the note read in evidence. There is no dispute but that on this issue your verdict should be for the plaintiffs. The second issue raises two questions: first, was Watson the principal debtor, and the other signers of the note his sureties? Second, did the plaintiffs give time to Watson to pay the money, beyond that stipulated in the note, without the consent of the sureties? All the signers of the note, appear on its face as principals— it is their joint note.

The defendants undertake to prove to you, that Watson was the principal debtor, and the other signers only security,and thegiving time to the principal debtor without their consent. Our law permits them to do so, and if the evidence does not satisfy of both these points, their defence fails altogether. The endorsement is relied upon to establish both propositions. It shows that further time of thirty days was given. The only remaining question is, was this time given wjthoufc. thjmonsent of the defendants?

In the body of this not^S^^rfnA^^jÉir consent or stipulation, that the payee may days at a time, upon receiving fifteen dollarsYfin advanc^|im|i\|hat this may be continued at the pleasure of te. This is' the legal construction of the note,fend therefore»the ©foe given, which is shown by the endorsement,wa|i3ím»MffiyTmb¡fent of the defendants, according to their written^ag^ggneofewe*^ Verdict for the plaintiffs. — ReservedYto the Court in Bank on the question of interest: (See 6 O. R. 510.)