Demeritt v. Bickford
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The defendant requested the plaintiff to sign a note to one Wentworth, as surety for his son, promising the plaintiff that he would see the note paid and indemnify him. The plaintiff, in consideration thereof, relying upon the defendant’s promise, signed the note. The defendant moved that the court order a verdict, because the agreement, not being in writing, was within the statute of frauds. The court denied the motion, subject to exception.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The defendant requested the plaintiff to sign a note to one Wentworth, as surety for his son, promising the plaintiff that he would see the note paid and indemnify him. The plaintiff, in consideration thereof, relying upon the defendant’s promise, signed the note. The defendant moved that the court order a verdict, because the agreement, not being in writing, was within the statute of frauds. The court denied the motion, subject to exception. Verdict for the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
Is the promise of the defendant within the provision of the statute of frauds, that no action shall be brought to charge any person upon a special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, unless the same is in writing ? Gen. St., c. 201, s. 13. The question is not new. It is old and vexatious. The authorities are not uniform. The English are hopelessly in conflict, and the American courts are in the same condition. The direct authorities are nearly equally divided. Those deciding that the promise is within the statute insist that if the surety became such solely…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chapin v. MerrillNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Barry v. . RansomNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Reed v. HolcombSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- Administrators of Beaman v. RussellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Vogel v. MelmsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.