
    Joseph Silmeyer v. William Schaffer.
    Release of SURETY — extension of time — principal. Where the payee of a note entered into an agreement with the principal, without the knowledge or consent of the surety, to extend the time of payment of the note for one year, upon condition that the principal should pay him twelve per cent interest, it was held, that such agreement- did not release the surety from liability on the note.
    Writ of Error to tbe County Court of LaSalle county; the Hon. P. Kimball LelaND, Judge, presiding.
    This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Joseph Sil-meyer against William Schaffer and Phillip K. Behrend, upon the following promissory note:
    “§2,758.85. • One year after date, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of Joseph Silmeyer two thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight 85-100 dollars.
    Peru, Ill., April 19, 1867. .• P. K. Behrekd,
    Wm. Schaffer.”
    Summons was returned served upon the defendants to the September term, 1869, of said court. On the 6th of September, 1869, the defendant Schaffer filed three pleas: lst> non-assumpsit; 2d, usury as to §295.68 of the consideration of the note; and 3d, a special plea in bar, averring in substance that said note was the only cause of action; that he signed the note as security for Behrend, and that after its maturity, to wit, August 28, 1868, without Schaffer’s knowledge or consent, the plaintiff agreed, on the application of Behrend, “in consideration that said Behrend then and there promised and agreed to and with said plaintiff to pay him interest upon said note at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the 19th day of July, A. D. 1868, to and until the 19th day of January, A. D. 1869, to extend the time for the payment of said note from the said 19th day of July, A. D. 1868, until said 19th day of January, A. D. 1869,” and that by said extension he, the defendant in error, became discharged from liability upon said note.
    Judgment by default against Behrend.
    The plaintiff demurred to Schaffer’s third plea. The court overruled the demurrer and the plaintiff abided by his demurrer. Judgment pro forma for the defendant, Schaffer, against the plaintiffj and for costs.
    The plaintiff brings the record to this court and makes the following assignments of error:
    1. The court below erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff to the third plea of defendant' Schaffer.
    2. The court below erred in rendering judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant' Schaffer.
    Messrs. Crawford & Beck, for the plaintiff in error.
    Mr. G. S. Eldridge, for the defendant in error.
   Per Curiam :

This case is, in all particulars, like Galbraith v. Fullerton, 53 Ill. 126, which had not been reported when the case at bar was tried. On the authority of that case, this judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.  