Burrows v. Robertson
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Polk District Court. Action upon a promissory note. The defendant answering, admitted the execution of the note,- but denied that he is now indebted as alleged, or in any less sum.— He then alleges, that in the autumn of- 1855, one Mark Thompson, being indebted to him' in .the sum of fifteen hundred dollars,. a contract was then entered into by and between defendant, the plaintiffs, and said Thompson ; which contract was verbal, but was to the following…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Polk District Court. Action upon a promissory note. The defendant answering, admitted the execution of the note,- but denied that he is now indebted as alleged, or in any less sum.— He then alleges, that in the autumn of- 1855, one Mark Thompson, being indebted to him' in .the sum of fifteen hundred dollars,. a contract was then entered into by and between defendant, the plaintiffs, and said Thompson ; which contract was verbal, but was to the following effect: That said Thompson agreed to pay, at maturity, the note sued upon herein, charging to defendant’s account the amount,…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodward, J.
It might, perhaps, be admitted that Thompson would be liable upon his promise to the plaintiffs. 2 Stark, on Ev., 345—6, note, (edit, of 1854); Brown on Stat. Frauds, sec. 165, et seq; where it is laid down that when the contract is, in effect, a promise to pay one’s own debt, it is not within the statute. Eut this is on the question, whether one standing, as Thompson does, is bound. Admitting his liability, however, and it does not follow, of course, that Robertson is discharged, Barber v. Backlin, 2 Denio, 49; Blunt v. Boyd, 3 Barb., 209.
There has not fallen under our notice, any case…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barker v. BucklinNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Blunt v. BoydNew York Supreme Court · 1848