Smith v. Ide
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit, and the declaration contained several counts setting forth in substance — That on the 28th day of March, 1828, one Avara Gilman contracted to purchase of the plaintiff a pair of horses at the price of $200, on a credit of sixty days ; the plaintiff to, have Gilman’s note and the guarantee of some other responsible person — That the note was accordingly executed'and delivered, but the delivery of the horses was not to be made,nor the sale to…
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, and the declaration contained several counts setting forth in substance — That on the 28th day of March, 1828, one Avara Gilman contracted to purchase of the plaintiff a pair of horses at the price of $200, on a credit of sixty days ; the plaintiff to, have Gilman’s note and the guarantee of some other responsible person — That the note was accordingly executed'and delivered, but the delivery of the horses was not to be made,nor the sale to take effect, until the guarantee was furnished — That Gilman thereupon applied to the defendant to give the guarantee…
1Opinion of the CourtRoyce, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. — Several questions are made in the argument of this case. 1. Whether the un~ *295dertakmg of the defendant is to be .considered as an original engagement, or as collateral to that of Gilman, and so within the statute of frauds and perjuries. 2. If within the statute, whether the writing discloses a sufficient consideration to sustain the promise. 3. If it does not, whether the promise is ineffectual and void, either at common law or under the statute, because the consideration is not in writing. And lastly, if the promise was binding, whether the defendant is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hunt v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Young & Otis v. CovellNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Campbell v. ButlerNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Bailey v. FreemanNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Chase v. DayNew York Supreme Court · 1819
3Cited by11 opinions
- Chittenden Trust Co. v. Sebert Lumber, Co. (In Re Vermont Toy Works, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · 1987
- M. Noyes & Co. v. NicholsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Partridge v. DavisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Gurman v. Stowe-Woodward, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Ray v. SweeneyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1878
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.