Earle v. Coburn
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon an account annexed for the board and stabling of the defendant’s horse, from April 14,1877, to January 17, 1878. Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Contract upon an account annexed for the board and stabling of the defendant’s horse, from April 14,1877, to January 17, 1878. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows: It was in evidence that, prior to April 14, 1877, the plaintiff had exchanged the horse in question with the defendant for a wagon; that a controversy arose between them as to the character of the transaction, and its effect upon the title of each in the property exchanged; that the defendant returned the horse to…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
This case cannot be distinguished in principle from Whiting v. Sullivan, 7 Mass. 107. In that case it was said, “ As *598the law will not imply a promise, where there was an express promise, so the law will not imply a promise of any person against his own express declaration; because such declaration is repugnant to any implication of a promise.” As applicable to that case and to the case at bar, this language is entirely accurate. There may be cases where the law will imply a promise to pay by a party who protests he will not pay; but those are cases in which the law creates a duty to perform…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Boston Ice Co. v. PotterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Whiting v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
3Cited by24 opinions
- Miller v. . SchlossNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Cooper v. CooperMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
- Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Bros., Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1981
- Williams v. SederMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.