Sanborn v. Emerson
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The declaration was a general count for money paid, laid out, and expended, for the use of the defendant. The defendant pleaded the general issue and statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s writ was sued out on the 3d day of March, 1836, and was served on the 19th day of the same March.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The declaration was a general count for money paid, laid out, and expended, for the use of the defendant. The defendant pleaded the general issue and statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s writ was sued out on the 3d day of March, 1836, and was served on the 19th day of the same March. It appeared in evidence, that in December, 1830, the defendant resided in Bristol, and at that time several suits were commenced against him, and his property was attached upon them to an amount sufficient to secure the several debts and the costs which subsequently accrued upon them — that the…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
Several reasons are assigned for setting aside the verdict. The first is, that there was a special contract proved, which ought to have been declared on. It is contended that the implied promise relied upon by the plaintiffs was excluded by the fact of the existence of the express promise proved ; and that, therefore, the action, which is in-debitatus assumpsit, could not be maintained.
It is undoubtedly a general rale of law, that where the parties have made an express contract, the law will not imply a contract ; and that so long as the contract remains in *62force, and is neither rescinded,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Perkins v. HartSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Whiting v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Worthen v. StevensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808