Goodnow v. Bond
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on this writing: East Sullivan, Dec. 31,1875. I promise to pay D. W. Goodnow, collector, one hundred and thirty-two and 27-100 dollars, on demand, for taxes due the town of Sullivan from John N. Grout, for the year 1875. L. S. Bond. N. G. Lyman.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on this writing: East Sullivan, Dec. 31,1875. I promise to pay D. W. Goodnow, collector, one hundred and thirty-two and 27-100 dollars, on demand, for taxes due the town of Sullivan from John N. Grout, for the year 1875. L. S. Bond. N. G. Lyman. The writ described the plaintiff as collector of taxes, and the first count alleged that the defendant and N. G. Lyman, by their writing, jointly and severally promised to pay the plaintiff one hundred and thirty-two dollars and twenty seven cents on demand. The writing was also declared on as a promissory note, and there were the common…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The writing declared on is an agreement to pay the taxes of a third person, and is not a promissory note. The facts do not support the common money counts, and a special declaration is necessary- Knight v. Knight, 16 N. H. 107. The amendment alleging a consideration does not introduce a new cause of action, is necessary, and was properly allowed. Greenleaf v. Burbank, 13 N. H. 454; Gove v. Newton, 58 N. H. 359. The written contract contained a .promise of the defendant to pay the plaintiff the debt of a third person, and was a sufficient memorandum, within the meaning of the statute of frauds…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Brown v. FowlerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900