Rix v. Adams
Supreme Court of Vermont
This case came before this court on exceptions to the decision of the county court, against the sufficiency of the first count in plaintiff’s declaration, on demurrer and joinder.
Read the full summary
This case came before this court on exceptions to the decision of the county court, against the sufficiency of the first count in plaintiff’s declaration, on demurrer and joinder. That count was as follows: “For that, at said Royal ton, on the thirtieth day of March, “ in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and “ thirty two, the said David Adams was making a contract with “ Solomon Downer, of Sharon, in said county, and becoming “ indebted to said Downer, and was about to give him a note, “ with surety, for the sum of one hundred and five dollars, paya- “ ble by the tenth day of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, J.
If the contract, alleged in the declaration, is founded upon any consideration, it must be the original undertaking of Adams, as principal, in the debt to Downer, or the “ keeping plaintiff easy,” in his relation of surety to Downer. The latter consideration is one, in its terms, of rather novel impression ; but in fact, it is synonymous with forbearance. The *239contract, then, is substantially that of defendants, jointly guarantying plaintiff’s immunity on his liability to Downer. There is no pretence of any consideration moving between…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harding v. CragieSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rowell v. Town of VershireSupreme Court of Vermont · 1890
- J. H. Queal & Co. v. PetersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Hildebrand & Posner v. Bloodsworth, Whitley & RidenourOregon Supreme Court · 1885
- State ex rel. Clark, Dodge & Co. v. City of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1861