Barker v. Lambert

A payment in advance for the aid furnished would have been a legal transaction supported by a sufficient consideration. Amazeen v. New Castle, 76 N. H. 250; Warren v. Weaver, 78 N. H. 108. It is not perceived why a promise to repay in the future is not equally valid and enforceable.

The contention that the wife’s promise is void as an undertaking on behalf of her husband (P. L., c. 288, s. 2) mistakes the nature of the transaction. It was an original undertaking by both, entered into to obtain family support. The wife may bind herself by such a promise. White Mountain National Bank v. Noyes,…