
    J. S. Hand v. Fretsch, Burkhardt & Co.
    [Abstract Kentucky Law Reporter, Vol. 3-472.]
    Principal and Surety.
    Where the creditor and the principal on a note agree that title to mill property shall be transferred to a man to indemnify him if he will become surety on the note, and he is induced by the agreement to become surety and such indemnity is withheld from him, he has a defense to the note against the principal and the holder.
    APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CHANCERY COURT.
    December 10, 1881.
   Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The answer, when considered with reference to each paragraph, presents a defense to the action by the surety. If it was agreed between the plaintiff and the principal in the note that the title in the mill should be vested in the appellant to indemnify him as surety, and this agreement was the inducement and consideration for his becoming bound as such, it seems to us it presents a defense to the action in the event of a failure to comply. Collusion and fraud are also alleged between the appellees and the principal for the purpose of obtaining his name as surety. The demurrer should have been overruled to the answer as a whole, as it presented a defense to the action.

Duncan & Barker, for appellant.

J. H. Pryor, for appellees.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.  