Hunt v. Adams
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This action was assumpsit, brought by Isaac Bennet, the plaintiff’s intestate, who dying since its commencement,' the present plaintiff was admitted to prosecute it. The declaration contains several counts upon a paper purporting to be a promissory note, made by one Joseph Chaplin (who is alleged to be without the state), and the defendant. The first count is upon a note signed by the defendant solely.
Read the full summary
This action was assumpsit, brought by Isaac Bennet, the plaintiff’s intestate, who dying since its commencement,' the present plaintiff was admitted to prosecute it. The declaration contains several counts upon a paper purporting to be a promissory note, made by one Joseph Chaplin (who is alleged to be without the state), and the defendant. The first count is upon a note signed by the defendant solely. The second is on a note signed by him jointly and severally with Chaplin. [ * 359 ] * The third count is on a special promise of the defendant, that if the plaintiff would trust Chaplin to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was afterwards delivered to the following effect, by
Parsons, C. J.
The defendant objects to the evidence on which the verdict in this case was found, insisting that on his part it is an agreement to pay the debt of Chaplin, and so is within the statute of 1788, c. 16. § 1., which is our statute of frauds, and that this agreement, containing no consideration in writing, will not take the casé out of the statute. To support his objection he relies on the case of Wain vs. Warlters.
As our statute of frauds is in this respect similar to the English statute of 29 Car. 2. c.…
2Cited by59 opinions
- George v. TateSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Moies v. BirdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Dean v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Riley v. JarvisWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
- Nelson v. DuboisNew York Supreme Court · 1816
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.