Hamaker v. Eberley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ASSUMPSIT. The declaration contained three counts; but the verdict being rendered for the plaintiff, upon lbe second and third only, the first is immaterial, The third count was for money had and received.
Read the full summary
ASSUMPSIT. The declaration contained three counts; but the verdict being rendered for the plaintiff, upon lbe second and third only, the first is immaterial, The third count was for money had and received. The second stated, that a certain discourse being had by and be-the plaintiff and defendant, on the 1st of February 1799, of and concerning certain bonds, &c. the plaintiff then an The cause was tried at a Circuit Court for Dauphin, in june 1808, before Mr. Justice Brackenridge, who overruled two motions by the defendant, one for a new trial, the other in arrest of judgment; from both which…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. j.
after stating the manner in which the promise was laid in the second count, delivered his opinion, as follows:.
'It is objected on the part of the defendant, that this promise is void, for want of a consideration; that it is a mere gratuitous promise of one man, to answer for the debts of another. The principle on which cases of this kind turn, is very well settled. To make a consideration sufficient in law to support: an assumpsit, there must be some benefit arising to the defendant, or some injury or loss to the plaintiff. A promise to forbear a suit against a man, against whom…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Colburn v. GrotonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
- Clark v. RusselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Glasscock v. GlasscockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Burnham v. ButlerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- Gove v. NewtonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.