Tarr v. Northey
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit upon a promise by the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff, who was a constable of Whitefield, for any damage he might sustain for taking a horse and three tons of hay upon an execution in his hands in favor of Hosea Northey, son of the defendant, against one O ’Brian. The horse and hay were claimed by persons other than the execution debtor. The defendant directed the plaintiff to take the property, which he was unwilling to do without indemnity.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promise by the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff, who was a constable of Whitefield, for any damage he might sustain for taking a horse and three tons of hay upon an execution in his hands in favor of Hosea Northey, son of the defendant, against one O ’Brian. The horse and hay were claimed by persons other than the execution debtor. The defendant directed the plaintiff to take the property, which he was unwilling to do without indemnity. He was not satisfied that Hosea was able to indemnify him, and thereupon the defendant promised the plaintiff verbally, that he would…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court w'as drawn up by
Emery J.
The defendant insists, that he is not liable to the plaintiff, the officer, who was induced to take the horse and hay upon an execution in favor of the defendant’s son, by the direction of the defendant, and his promise verbally that he wmuld indemnify the plaintiff for any damage that might arise to him for so doing. Reliance is placed upon the fact, that as the defendant was not the execution creditor, the promise was without consideration, and because not in writing, cannot he enforced in law.
It must often be extremely difficult for an…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Kladivo v. MelbergSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
- Lerch v. GallupCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Britton v. AngierSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1869
- Demeritt v. BickfordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879