First National Bank v. Dohm
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On certiorari to the Mercer Pleas. The following facts were given in evidence by the defendant, F. A: Dohm, in above case, on the hearing of said case on-appeal by the Common Pleas on May 25th, 1888 : The plaintiffs, holding a promissory note dated November 22d, 1886, made by G. A. Dohm to the order of Benjamin-Gray, for $133.60, and payable three months after date,, endorsed by said Gray to plaintiffs, said note being dishonored and duly protested, brought suit thereon…
Read the full summary
On certiorari to the Mercer Pleas. The following facts were given in evidence by the defendant, F. A: Dohm, in above case, on the hearing of said case on-appeal by the Common Pleas on May 25th, 1888 : The plaintiffs, holding a promissory note dated November 22d, 1886, made by G. A. Dohm to the order of Benjamin-Gray, for $133.60, and payable three months after date,, endorsed by said Gray to plaintiffs, said note being dishonored and duly protested, brought suit thereon against G. A. Dohm alone before a justice of the peace of Monmouth county, New Jersey, and on August 6th, 1887, obtained a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dixon, J.
The question presented by the foregoing statement of facts is, whether the note given by Mrs. Dohm failed to bind her, upon the ground that it was a promise to pay the debt, or'answer for the default or liability of another .person, within the proviso of section 5 of our Married Woman’s act. jRev., p. 636.
This clause of the proviso is, in substance, undistinguishable from one of the provisions of the statute of frauds, which' requires- a writing in order to charge a promisor to answer for the debt, default or miscarriagé of another person, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. GallivanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Headley v. LeavittSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1903
- Reeves v. MorganNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1891
- Vliet v. EastburnSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1899