Russell v. Babcock
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was an action of assumpsit, declaring specially on a pro- ■ mise of the defendant to pay tire debt of another upon the consideration of forbearance. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court. The action was defaulted, which default was to be taken off, if in the opinion of the Court the action could bo maintained. The case was argued in writing by Gutting, for the defendant, and by W. P. Fessenden, for the plaintiffs. Cutting, cited Rob. on Frauds, Tit.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, declaring specially on a pro- ■ mise of the defendant to pay tire debt of another upon the consideration of forbearance. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court. The action was defaulted, which default was to be taken off, if in the opinion of the Court the action could bo maintained. The case was argued in writing by Gutting, for the defendant, and by W. P. Fessenden, for the plaintiffs. Cutting, cited Rob. on Frauds, Tit. Contracts; Skelton v. Brewster, 8 Johns. R. 376 ; Simpson v. Fatten, 4 Johns. R. 422; and Slingerland v. Morse, 7 Johns.…
1Opinion of the Court
After a continuance, for advisement, tlie opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Emery J.
The defendant’s counsel contends, that the undertaking of tbe defendant was collateral; and though it is somewhat difficult frequently to distinguish between an original and a collateral promise, yet he considers tlie rule to be, that where the original debt is not discharged by the subsequent promise, it is a collateral undertaking only, and to be binding, should he in writing.
In this case there was no note or memorandum in writing signed by the defendant. Tlie suit is upon a promise of the defendant to pay…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lampson v. Estate of HobartSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Britton v. AngierSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1869