Slingerland v. Morse
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration stated that the defendants, on the 7th June, 1809, in consideration that the plaintiff had delivered to the dey fendants, two horses, eight beds, two cows, &c. the der lili. ... tendants undertook, and by their agreement m writing pro-raised the plaintiff to deliver the same articles to the plaintiff when he should demand the same, or pay the plaintiff 450 dollars.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration stated that the defendants, on the 7th June, 1809, in consideration that the plaintiff had delivered to the dey fendants, two horses, eight beds, two cows, &c. the der lili. ... tendants undertook, and by their agreement m writing pro-raised the plaintiff to deliver the same articles to the plaintiff when he should demand the same, or pay the plaintiff 450 dollars. The plaintiff averred that he demanded the goods of the defendants on the 1st of August, 1809, and ° _ ” . the defendants have not delivered them, &c. or paid the 450 dollars, but…
1Per curiam
This was aboriginal and not a collateral undertaking. The case of William v. Leper, (3 Burr. 1886.) is very much in point. Here the plaintiff, as landlord, had a legal pledge in his custody, and the defendants made the promise in order to discharge the goods of the distress. According to the expression of Mr. Justice Aston, the goods here were the debtor. Whether this promise would not be good even as a collateral undertaking is another question. Lord Eldon says (14 Vesey, 190.) that in cases of a collateral undertaking to pay the debt of another, there is no new consideration moving from the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Mallory v. . GillettNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Farley v. ClevelandNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Gerow v. RiffeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Lightle v. BerningNevada Supreme Court · 1880
- Mallory v. GillettNew York Supreme Court · 1857
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.