Pratt v. Humphrey
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Newell Pratt, against James Humphrey and Phebe Pratt, who were administrators on the estate of Andrew Pratt, late of Winchester, deceased. The declaration contained two counts, which were substantially alike.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Newell Pratt, against James Humphrey and Phebe Pratt, who were administrators on the estate of Andrew Pratt, late of Winchester, deceased. The declaration contained two counts, which were substantially alike. It alleged that, on or about the 8th day of May, 1849, the estate of Andrew Pratt, then late of Winchester, was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of twelve hundred dollars, to balance book accounts; and that the court of probate for the district of Winchester, in which said estate was in the progress of settlement, on said 8th day of May,…
1Opinion of the CourtStorrs, J.
The questions presented in this case are, 1,
whether a sufficient consideration is alleged for the promise stated in the declaration; and, 2, whether such promise is within either of the first two branches of the statute of frauds, and should therefore have been in writing.
1. A good consideration is necessary to the validity of this promise, whether it is within the statute of frauds, or not. Mitchinson v. Hewson, 7 T. R., 344, n. Allen v. Bennett, 1 Saund., 211, n. 2. Burrell v. Russell, 3 Taunt., 173. Claney v. Pigott, 2 Ad. & El., 473.
It being stated in the declaration, that the claim of…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Resseter v. WatermanIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Mascolo v. MontesantoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Waterman Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Williams v. AutenNebraska Supreme Court · 1901
- Brown ex rel. Clardy v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.