Arnold v. Lyman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of assumpsit, founded upon the following agreement, subscribed by the defendant, viz., “ Whereas Hezekiah Hutchins hath this day assigned, transferred, made over and sold to me, certain notes, accounts, demands, goods, wares, and merchandise, as per invoice and schedule annexed; with full authority to collect, receive and make sale of them to my own use; now therefore, in consideration of the premises, I do hereby promise and engage to assume and pay the…
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, founded upon the following agreement, subscribed by the defendant, viz., “ Whereas Hezekiah Hutchins hath this day assigned, transferred, made over and sold to me, certain notes, accounts, demands, goods, wares, and merchandise, as per invoice and schedule annexed; with full authority to collect, receive and make sale of them to my own use; now therefore, in consideration of the premises, I do hereby promise and engage to assume and pay the following demands against the said Hutchins, as follows, to wit,-also one note to Samuel Arnold for two hundred and…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
There was a sufficient consideration for the promise. The goods of Hutchins, which in his hands were liable for his debts, were trans*327ferred to the defendant, and put into his possession. This transfer might have been avoided by the creditors of Hutchins; but there is no evidence that the possession of the defendant has ever been distuibed. The promise, founded on this consideration, was not made to Hutchins; although, without doubt, he could have maintained an action upon the contract, had he been sued upon any of the notes, which the defendant undertook to pay.
But we think also that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Weston v. BarkerNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Goodridge v. LordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Administrators of Dumond v. CarpenterNew York Supreme Court · 1808
3Cited by64 opinions
- Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Choate, Hall & Stewart v. SCA Services, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Barker v. BucklinNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Eddy v. RobertsIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
- Thacker v. Hubard & Appleby, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1918
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.