Britton v. . Thrailkill
Supreme Court of North Carolina
A promise to pay the debts of a third person, cannot be sued on to recover each debt separately, but one action should be brought for the whole together. AotioN of assuMsit, tried before Saundebs, J., at the last Spring Term of Chatham Superior Court. The action was commenced by a warrant before a j ustice of the peace against a party, for the debt of his son, and brought up by appeal.
Read the full summary
A promise to pay the debts of a third person, cannot be sued on to recover each debt separately, but one action should be brought for the whole together. AotioN of assuMsit, tried before Saundebs, J., at the last Spring Term of Chatham Superior Court. The action was commenced by a warrant before a j ustice of the peace against a party, for the debt of his son, and brought up by appeal. It appeared on the trial that the son was making preparation to leave the State, and the defendant was very desirous to facilitate and hasten his departure. The plaintiffs having various and separate debts…
1Opinion of the CourtPearson, J.
¥e are not of opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment, and that both of the objections taken by the defendant were fatal to the right of recovery. 'The promise sued on, was, in so many words, a promise to pay the debt of another, which was snperadded to the original debt, which remained in full force. It does not fall within the class of cases referred to in Draughan v. Bunting, 9 Ired. Rep. 10, which was cited on the argument, where the original debt is released and the promise in question is substituted, as where a creditor discharges a debtor who is in custody, and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Featherston v. . MerrimonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Haun v. . BurrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896