Bugbee v. Kendricken
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon an account annexed for goods delivered to the firm of Tully Brothers & Walker, upon a promise of the defendant to pay for them, and to accept an order for their amount. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. The statute of frauds. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., the jury returned a verdict for thé plaintiffs; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtEndicott, J.
The goods for the payment of which the plaintiffs seek to recover in this action were delivered to the firm of Tully Brothers & Walker. If they were delivered to the firm on the sole credit of the defendant, this action can be maintained on his oral promise to pay for them. But if the sole credit was given to the firm, or if credit was given both to the defendant and to the firm, then the action cannot be maintained; for the promise to pay, not being in writing, and being in the nature of a promise to pay the debt of another, it falls within the prohibition of the statute of frauds. Gen. Sts.…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Harris v. FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Kalker v. BailenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Cole v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- O'Connell v. Mount Holyoke CollegeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Alexander v. DoveMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.