Legal Opinion

Cook v. Barrett

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1862PublishedCited by 7 opinions

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. This action was brought before a justice of tbe peace to recover for several items of indebtedness, of which tbe following was tbe last set forth in the bill of particulars: “ April, 1860. Paid John Walker, $400. ” The evidence given as to this item on the trial, is stated in the opinion of the court. Judgment for the plaintiff for damages and costs, in-eluding in the latter the fees of the defendants’ witnesses.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. This action was brought before a justice of tbe peace to recover for several items of indebtedness, of which tbe following was tbe last set forth in the bill of particulars: “ April, 1860. Paid John Walker, $400. ” The evidence given as to this item on the trial, is stated in the opinion of the court. Judgment for the plaintiff for damages and costs, in-eluding in the latter the fees of the defendants’ witnesses. On appeal to the circuit court, the judgment was affirmed. 1. Tbe agreement under wbicb tbe plaintiff seeks to recover tbe item of…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Cole, J.

As we understand tbe facts of this case, tbe last item of tbe respondent’s account does not come within tbe statute af frauds. It is not the promise to answer for tbe debt or default of another, but an original undertaking by tbe Barretts. It appears that'Walker was owing Cook, and that tbe Barretts were owing Walker. So it was agreed by and between all tbe parties, that Cook should release bis debt against Walker and look to tbe Barretts alone for tbe payment of tbe four dollars. For Cook says in substance, in bis testimony : “ Walker owed me and worked for tbe Barretts…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kollock v. ParcherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Houghton v. MilburnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Grant v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Pinson & Sunday v. PrentiseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
  5. Hooker v. RussellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API