Marshall v. Cobleigh
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, upon the following contract: “For value received, I hereby promise to indemnify and save harmless George Marshall and Elisha Webster from all cost and trouble they may be at in consequence of their backing a writ for William Elliott and Samuel Killam, defendants, in favor of Josiah Bellows, 2d, made returnable to the county court holden at Guildhall pn the last Tuesday of May next. Levi W. Oobleigh.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon the following contract: “For value received, I hereby promise to indemnify and save harmless George Marshall and Elisha Webster from all cost and trouble they may be at in consequence of their backing a writ for William Elliott and Samuel Killam, defendants, in favor of Josiah Bellows, 2d, made returnable to the county court holden at Guildhall pn the last Tuesday of May next. Levi W. Oobleigh. Brunswick, March 25, 1836.” The contract was made to indemnify the plaintiffs for becoming bail for the persons therein named, then under arrest in an action of trespass quare clausum,…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, J.
One of the exceptions to the verdict is, that no consideration for the promise is proved.
The defendant, Cobleigh, claiming to own a tract of land, sent his servants, Elliott and Killam, to cut the timber upon it, and Josiah Bellows, 2d, claiming also to own it, brought his action of trespass against the servants, and caused them to be arrested. "While they were under arrest the defendant made the contract upon which this action is brought, and the plaintiffs bailed his servants.
The contract distinctly states the consideration and the promise founded upon it. The consideration is the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jerome v. WhitneyNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Whitney v. StearnsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1839
- Fish v. DanaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Odiorne v. OdiorneSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1831
- Barrett v. BarronSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842