ACCESSORY CONTRACT. One made for assuring the performance of a prior contract, either by the same parties or by others ; such as suretyship, mortgages, and pledges.
It is a general rule that payment or release of the debt due, or the performance of a thing required to be performed by the first or principal contract, is a full discharge of such accessory obligation; Pothier, Ob. 1, c. 1, s. 1, art. 2, n. '14; id. n. 182, 186; see 8 Mass. 551; Waring v. Smyth, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 119, 47 Am. Dec. 299; Blodgett v. Wadhams, Lalor's Supp. (N. Y.) 65; Ackla v. Ackla, 6 Pa. 228 ; Whittemore v. Gibbs, 24 N. H. 484; and that an assignment of the principal contract will carry the accessory contract with it ; Donley v. Hays, 17 S. & R. (Pa.) 400; Jackson v. Biodget, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 202; Ord v. McKee, 5 Cal. 515 ; Crow v. Vance, 4 Ia. 434; Whittemore v. Gibbs, 24 N. H. 484.
If the accessory contract be a contract by which one is to answer for the debt, de fault or miscarriage of another, it must, un der the statute of frauds, be in writing, and disclose the consideration, either explicitly, or by the use of terms from which it may be implied ; 5 M. & W. 128; 5 B. & Ad. 1109; Bickford v. Gibbs, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 156 ; Campbell v. Knapp, 15 Pa. 27 ; Gates v. Mc Kee, 13 N. Y. 232, 64 Am. Dec. 545; Spencer v. Carter, 49 N. C. 287 ; Schoch v. McLane, 62 Mich. 454, 29 N. W. 76. Such a contract is not assignable so as to enable the assignee to sue thereon in his own name; True v.
Fuller, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 140 ; Lanqe>uri c.
Hewit, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 307. A pledge of property to secure the debt of another does not come within the statute of frauds ; Smith v. Mott, 76 Cal. 171, 18 Pac. 260.