The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday May 1 1939

The reason given was that if merely the principal debtor is released but the debt is not discharged and the right to proceed against the surety is reserved the surety cannot escape liability on the plea that the principal debtor is no longer liable. [...] The whole basis of the decision is the ditinction between discharge of the debtor and discharge of the debt and we should think a distinction exists. [...] We do not know whether in arriving at their decsion the Judicial Committee had present to their mind the consideration that the laguage of the Indian Act seemed to leave no room for the survival of the surety's liability on the footing of the survival of debt after the debtor had been discharged. [...] present case an attempt was made to raise the point in a subsequent suit brought by the husband but the Court was able to dispose of it on the short ground that since a decree for dissolution had been passed in a suit to which the husband was a party and that decree was subsisting it bound the parties and the question could not be re-agitated co-laterally: The legal advisers of the hus; band ' [...] The conversion is a subterfuge undergone with the knowledge that the husband will not comply with the 'demand made of him and in the hope that under the law it will bring deliverance from the marriage bond.