Gump v. Halberstadt
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multnomah Óounty. We contend that the promise, founded upon a new and original consideration, moving directly between the respondent Lewis and appellants, made and created an original agreement between the respondent Lewis and appellants, and under the classifications laid down by Chancellor Kent, is not within the Statute of Frauds, and need not be in writing to be enforced against the promisor. {Leonard v. Vredenbergh, 8 Johns. 29; Farley v. Cleveland, 4 Cowan,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multnomah Óounty. We contend that the promise, founded upon a new and original consideration, moving directly between the respondent Lewis and appellants, made and created an original agreement between the respondent Lewis and appellants, and under the classifications laid down by Chancellor Kent, is not within the Statute of Frauds, and need not be in writing to be enforced against the promisor. {Leonard v. Vredenbergh, 8 Johns. 29; Farley v. Cleveland, 4 Cowan, 432; I/udwieh v. Watson, 3 Or. 256; Mallory v. Grilled, 21 N. T. 412; Spooner v. Dwnn, 7 Ind. 81; 63 Am. Dec. 414;…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, C. J.
This was an action to recover money, which was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment entered upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) That on October 1, 1884, the defendant Joseph Halber-stadt, being indebted to plaintiffs, on that day executed and delivered, to them his certain promissory note in writing, bearing date October 1, 1884, whereby Halberstadt promised to pay, ninety days after date, to the order of plaintiffs, 188.40,, *358(2) That afterwards said defendant paid on said note the sum of $35.86, and at the date of the commencement of this action there…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Mallory v. . GillettNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Corn v. SimsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Fullam v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
- Furbish v. GoodnowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Mercein v. Andrus & MackNew York Supreme Court · 1833
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pinson & Sunday v. PrentiseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
- Wadhams v. InmanOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Gilles v. MahonySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Smith v. Algona Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913