Short answer. Yes, but only once you had notice and a real opportunity to join the defense. Under Rule 39, Section 46, a principal is bound by a judgment against their surety from the time they had notice of the action and, at the surety's request, an opportunity to take part in defending it.
What the law says
When a judgment is rendered against a party who stands as surety for another, the latter is also bound from the time that he has notice of the action or proceeding, and an opportunity at the surety's request to join in the defense.
Rule 39, Section 46 — When principal bound by judgment against surety. Read the full provision →
The rule in plain terms
Section 46 addresses what happens to the principal when a judgment is rendered against the person who stands as surety for another. Rather than treating the principal as automatically untouched by a case they were not personally a party to, the rule binds the principal too — but conditions that binding effect on two things having actually happened: notice of the action or proceeding, and an opportunity at the surety's request to join in the defense.
Why fairness to the principal is built into the rule
Binding someone to a judgment in a case they never knew about, and never had a chance to help defend, would be a serious due-process problem. This rule avoids that by making the principal's exposure to the judgment turn on whether they actually received notice and were given a real opportunity — triggered by the surety's own request — to participate in the defense. Without both of those, the judgment against the surety does not carry over to bind the principal in the same way.
Why this matters for suretyship relationships generally
Suretyship arrangements are built on the idea that the surety stands behind the principal's obligation. This rule extends that logic into litigation: if the surety gets sued on the underlying obligation, giving the principal notice and a chance to join the defense lets the principal protect their own interest in the outcome, rather than being bound later by a result they had no say in shaping — while still ultimately holding the principal to the outcome once that fair opportunity was actually given.
What a principal should do if their surety is sued
If you are a principal and learn that your surety has been sued on the underlying obligation, the practical takeaway from this rule is to actively seek to participate, since the surety's request is what opens the door to your involvement in the defense. Waiting passively and later arguing you were never properly involved is a weaker position than having engaged once notice and the opportunity to join were actually given — because the rule's protection depends on those two things having genuinely occurred, not on how the case eventually turns out.
Related provisions
- Rule 39, Section 46 — When principal bound by judgment against surety
- Rule 39, Section 45 — Entry of satisfaction with or without admission
- Rule 39, Section 47 — Effect of judgments or final orders