It will be observed that the common law is not modified in so far as the necessity of notice to the surety is concerned. If the defendant Litman succeeded on the contention that he is discharged for want of notice, then it appears to me that he would be in the same position as an endorser who had not received notice of dishonour, or a surety discharged at common law. He would be wholly discharged: Hebblewhite v. Gordon 1927 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1927] SCR 29, at 32.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.