Watson v. Dunlap
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Assumpsit, to pay for money advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant’s son by her first husband. prayed the court to instruct the jury that the first assumpsit being made while under covert-ure was void, (1 Strange, 94,) and that the subsequent assumpsit while sole, was void for want of consideration. contended that the promise being in writing, it was not necessary that there should be a consideration. 3 Call, 114.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
cannot alter the words of a statute, if they are positive ; if not ambiguous, there is no room for construction. The statute of frauds only requires the promise to be in writing, not the whole agreement. Violett v. Patton, 5 Cranch, 142.
The Court was of opinion, 1st, that there must be a consideration, although the promise be in writing. Rann v. Hughes, 7 T. R. 350 ; Wain v. Warlters, 5 East, 11. But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show the nature of the consideration, or that there was none. 2d, That the advance of money to her son while she was covert, did not create…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Violett v. PattonSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sheriger v. GrunerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1943