Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/230

 222 FEDERAL REPOHTEB. �Btatute did not begin to run agaiust him. This is too cleax to need amplification. �It ia argued, however, that upon the defendants' omission to pay the debt at its maturity the plaintiff might then have required them to exonerate him from his liability, and that henoe from that time the statute of limitations began to run, ardesco OU Co. t. North American OU d Mining Co. 16 P. F. Smith, 66 Pa. St. 375, is referred to to sustain this argument. It is there held to be "well settled that as soon as the surety'a obligation becomes absolute he is entitled in equity to require the principal debtor to exonerate him," 381, and that this right is enforceable by an action, in which the measure of damages is the amount of the debt for which the surety is liable. It is distinctly recognized as strictly an equity, which may be thus enforced only because, under the peculiar System which exista in Pennsylvania, equity is administered through com- mon law forms. But this exceptional mode of administration does not change the character of the right. It is still an equitable incident to the relation of principal and surety, which entitles the latter to demand protection against the former's possible default, and is, in its nature, distinct from and independent of the surety's legal remedy where the burden of payment has been actually cast upon him. Out of the payment of the debt the surety's right to employ such remedy springs, and hence it is clear that the statute of limitations bas no relation to it until it accrues. �The motion for a new trial is, therefore, denied, and judgment is dûrected to be entered on the verdict. ���WovKN WiBE Mattkess Company V. WiEB Web Bkd Company. �{Gireuii Court, B. Connectieul. Jlarch 18, 1880.1 �Injnnction for violation of patent. �Shipman, J. This is an application for a temporary iniunc- tion to restrain an alleged violation of reissued letters patent. ��� �