Bushnell v. Church
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit, founded on the following written instruments: 1. “ This agreement, made between William Church of Canaan, and Albert Bushnell of Salisbury, witnesseth — The said William, on condition that the said Albert performs the agreement on his part hereinafter set forth, agrees to pay him 1 dollar 75 cents per ton, for all the iron-ore the said Albert shall dig and raise from the ore-bed in Salisbury, owned by Samuel and Leman Church, not exceeding…
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, founded on the following written instruments: 1. “ This agreement, made between William Church of Canaan, and Albert Bushnell of Salisbury, witnesseth — The said William, on condition that the said Albert performs the agreement on his part hereinafter set forth, agrees to pay him 1 dollar 75 cents per ton, for all the iron-ore the said Albert shall dig and raise from the ore-bed in Salisbury, owned by Samuel and Leman Church, not exceeding 600 tons, and which the said William shall be enabled to sell and take away by the 1st day of April next;— said payment to…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Ch. J.
The defendants claim that they are not liable on this guaranty, because Bushnett did not give them notice of his acceptance thereof; and rely upon the case of Graft v. Isham in support of this claim. If this contract falls within the principles of that case, it must be governed by it; for we have no reasons to be dissatisfied with the authority of that case. That was strictly a commercial guaranty", or a mere offer or proposal to guaranty, in which case notice must be given. We do not think this is a case of that character. Here, the plaintiff was actually at work for William…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Drummond v. Executors of PrestmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Hammond v. Gilmore's AdministratorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841
- New-Haven County Bank v. MitchellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
- Inhabitants of Newtown v. Inhabitants of DanburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1821
3Cited by12 opinions
- Basak v. DamutzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Russell v. WebbSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Mapes v. FosterWyoming Supreme Court · 1928
- Ferst v. BlackwellSupreme Court of Florida · 1897
- Savings Bank of New Britain v. WeedSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.