808 FEDERA Ij REPORTER. �tiff's agent of the opinion that the legal effect of the new agreement would be to release the sureties on the bond, did not (especially if not acted upon by the sureties so as to change their legal rights) amount to a release. There was, therefore, no evidence upon which a verdict for the defend- ants could have been sustained. In such a case an instruc- tion to the jury to find for the plaintiff is proper. Pleasant V. Faut, 22 Wall. 116. �The motion for a new trial is overruled. �Ekekel, D. J., concurs. ���Vary. V. Norton and others. {Circuit Court, W. D. Michigan, S. B. January 15, 1881. �1. Pbomissoby Note— Principal and Sueett. �Wliere A., B., and C. are joint and several makers of a promissory note, and after its execution and delivery A. agrees with B. and C. to pay the note, the relation of principal and surety arises between the parties. �2. Same— Samb — Pabol Evidence. �Paroi evidence of such agreement is admissible, and does not tend to contradict the written contract, but shows the changed relation between the malcers. �3. Same — Same— Extension dp Time dp PAViraNT. �If the holder, with notice of such agreement, for a valuable con- sideration, extend the time of payment of the note for a deanite period, the sureties, B. and C, are thereby discharged. �4. Same— Same— Same — Payment of tlBuaious Considbkatioh. �The payment of a certain sura of money for the extension of time, though regarded as a payment of usurious interest, constltutes a val- uable consideration under the statute of Michigan. �Assumpsit. Trial before the Court. �Simonds e Fletcher, for plaintiff. �G. Chase Godwin, for defendants Norton and Lee. �R. W. Butterfield and J. W. Champlin, for defendant King. �WiTHBY, D. J. The suit is upon a promissory note. De- fendants Norton, Lee, and King defend. Judgment by default against ail the other defendants. King pleads sepa- ��� �
