Dillingham v. Runnels
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The declaration was in case, “ for that the said R., at, &c., in consideration that the plaintiff would discount 31 dollars out of a sum of money then and there due from said R., to the plaintiff, for land before that time by the plaintiff sold and conveyed to the said R., to the amount of more than 31 dollars, undertook, and faithfully promised the plaintiff, provided he would take and receive of said R. a certain note of hand, then and there in possession of said R.,…
Read the full summary
The declaration was in case, “ for that the said R., at, &c., in consideration that the plaintiff would discount 31 dollars out of a sum of money then and there due from said R., to the plaintiff, for land before that time by the plaintiff sold and conveyed to the said R., to the amount of more than 31 dollars, undertook, and faithfully promised the plaintiff, provided he would take and receive of said R. a certain note of hand, then and there in possession of said R., signed by one J. P., wherein and whereby the said J. P. promised to pay one M. R., or his order, 30 dollars 38 cents on…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
We are satisfied that in this case the admission by the judge of the paroi evidence was right. Runnels, being justly indebted to Dillingham, made the contract declared on, to induce the plaintiff to take J. P.’s note towards the payment of the debt. It is very immaterial what was the origin of the debt due to the plaintiff, if it was a just debt, whether it accrued from the plaintiff’s having therefor sold land to the defendant, or from any other lawful consideration. The defendant’s promise cannot be considered within the statute of frauds, because the contract, on which he is…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pillsbury v. MooreSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1857
- Boyd v. StoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Linscott v. McIntireSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1839