Marston v. French
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from district court. Action by Richard Marston against Mary F. French on an alleged guaranty. Prior to Laws H. Y. 1863, c. 464, contracts within the statute of frauds were required to show their consideration on their faces. The amendment of the Code that year omits that requirement. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtPryor, J.
The actions are brought by plaintiff, as assignee, upon an alleged guaranty of defendant; and the fundamental question is whether the guaranty be valid and enforceable. It is a mistake to suppose that since the act of 1863 a contract of guaranty need not express the consideration. The rule is conclusively settled otherwise by the court of appeals, (Barney v. Forbes, 118 N. Y. 580, 585, 23 N. E. Rep. 890; Drake v. Seaman, 97 N. Y. 230;) andit is still the law of Hew York that a contract of guaranty, to be valid, must exhibit on its face the parties, the promise, and the consideration. True,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mentz v. . NewwitterNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Drake v. . SeamanNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Barney v. . ForbesNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cahill Iron Works v. PembertonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- Rauch v. DonovanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Kittel v. StueveNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Baker v. KilburnNew York Supreme Court · 1912
- Nicoll v. HymanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894