Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/290

 FBDEEAL REPORTER. �1876, to W. A. Eonald, the surviving partner of Ronald & Co., for $3,000. Groves swears positively that, finding him- self indebted to Eonald in Bomewhat over |3,000, an agree- ment was made to extend the time on the Mayes note, and forbear suit, -without the knowledge and consent of the sure- ties, by giving a chattel mortgage upon a quantity of live stock then owned by him, it being understood, as he says, that the live stock should remain in his possession, and, when fattened and sold, the proceeds should be paid over to Eonald in set- tlement of his claim, It seems, however, that the hogs ail died of choiera, and the mortgage, when foreclosed, realized less than $200. �Did the giving of this mortgage extend the time for the payment of the Mayes debt ? It certainly did not upon its face. It recites "that whereas, the said Groves is indebted to said Eonald in the sum of $3,000, now due and payahle: Now, to secure the due payment of said sum, the said Groves hereby sells and conveys unto the said Eonald, etc. * * * provided, however, should the said Groves pay, or cause to be paid, the sum of $3,000, and the interest thereon, then this mortgage to be null and void, otherwise to remain in fuU force and effect." �It is well settled that, in order to release sureties, the agreement to extend the time must not only be given for a consideration, but it must be a binding agreement. There is evidence in this case tending strongly to show that this mortgage was in reality made by Groves to protect his prop- erty from his other creditors; but, granting that the mortgage was execnted for a valuable consideration, was there a bind- ing agreement to extend the time ? �As before observed, the mortgage does not purport to do so upon its face. No time is fixed for payment, and the rule in such cases is that the paper is payable immediately. 1 Dan. on Negotiable Instruments, §§ 88, 599 ; CornelL v. Moulton, 3 Den. 12. And paroi evidence is not admissible to show that it was to be paid at a future date. Thompson v. Ketchum, 8 John. 190; 1 Par. on Bills, 381; 2 Phillips on Evidence, 675 ; 1 Dan. on Negotiable Instruments, § 80. So, if a prom- ��� �