Conmey v. Macfarlane
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford county: Of January Term 1881, No. 42. Assumpsit, by Edward Overton against John Conmey, on a promissory note given by defendant to plaintiff for $450. The plaintiff died before trial, and his administrator, James Macfarlane, was substituted. On the trial, before Morrow, P. J., the plaintiff put the note in evidence and rested.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford county: Of January Term 1881, No. 42. Assumpsit, by Edward Overton against John Conmey, on a promissory note given by defendant to plaintiff for $450. The plaintiff died before trial, and his administrator, James Macfarlane, was substituted. On the trial, before Morrow, P. J., the plaintiff put the note in evidence and rested. The defendant set up want of consideration, and produced evidence to the following effect: In December 1877, Edward Overton was robbed of between §600 and $800, and some valuable papers, by Richard Conmey, son of John…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
A simple contract, oral or written, without consideration, is void, and no action can be maintained upon it. The law requires that the consideration should be valuable to support an action to enforce *364an executory contract; but some loss or inconvenience to the promisee upon his entering into the contract, or some benefit to the promisor, is deemed a valuable consideration. Where a benefit is done to a third person, at the request of the promisor, it is sufficient to support his promise. As where a person contemporaneously becomes surety for the debt, or for the performance of a duty, of a…
2Cited by14 opinions
- First National Bank v. PaffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Poelcher v. ZinkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Hudson v. MoonUtah Supreme Court · 1913
- First State Bank v. RadkeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
- Brauner v. CorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.