Barker v. Thayer

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Barker v. Thayer

217 Mass. 13

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 Mass. 13 (Barker v. Thayer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barker v. Thayer, 217 Mass. 13 (Mass. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

De Courcy, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant for plumbing work. It is undisputed that $165 of the bill is for bathroom fixtures that were supplied in 1903 under an express contract with the defendant’s husband, and were installed in the [14]*14tenement hired and occupied by him. The entire account in suit was treated as one bill and was charged on the books to the husband, Clarence Thayer, who was a businessman and considered financially sound by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in his testimony, admitted that he looked to Clarence Thayer for payment, and never spoke to the defendant about the bill until some months after her husband’s death. It appears that the house in which the work was done was then owned by Mrs. Howe, the defendant’s mother, whose family occupied the lower tenement; and that the defendant has since acquired an interest in the property by the will of her mother, who died in May, 1905. But she had no interest, legal or equitable, in the property when the plaintiff did the work for which he seeks to hold her answerable.

Clearly the defendant was not liable under the original contract. O’Conner v. Hurley, 147 Mass. 145. And the plaintiff cannot avail himself of the doctrine of an implied promise to pay, such as may be inferred where a husband as his wife’s agent procures valuable materials and services for her real estate. Cases like Reid v. Miller, 205 Mass. 80, cited by the plaintiff have no application under the facts shown here.

There was some evidence that after her husband’s death the defendant said she would pay the plaintiff’s bill. But as she was not legally liable for the original debt, such subsequent promise to pay it cannot be enforced against her. As she contends, it was without consideration, and, further, being an oral promise to pay the debt of another, it falls within the defense of the statute of frauds. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Green, 185 Mass. 306. R. L. c. 74. O’Connell v. Mount Holyolce College, 174 Mass. 511. The entry must be

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

De Courcy, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant for plumbing work. It is undisputed that $165 of the bill is for bathroom fixtures that were supplied in 1903 under an express contract with the defendant’s husband, and were installed in the [14]*14tenement hired and occupied by him. The entire account in suit was treated as one bill and was charged on the books to the husband, Clarence Thayer, who was a businessman and considered financially sound by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in his testimony, admitted that he looked to Clarence Thayer for payment, and never spoke to the defendant about the bill until some months after her husband’s death. It appears that the house in which the work was done was then owned by Mrs. Howe, the defendant’s mother, whose family occupied the lower tenement; and that the defendant has since acquired an interest in the property by the will of her mother, who died in May, 1905. But she had no interest, legal or equitable, in the property when the plaintiff did the work for which he seeks to hold her answerable.

Clearly the defendant was not liable under the original contract. O’Conner v. Hurley, 147 Mass. 145. And the plaintiff cannot avail himself of the doctrine of an implied promise to pay, such as may be inferred where a husband as his wife’s agent procures valuable materials and services for her real estate. Cases like Reid v. Miller, 205 Mass. 80, cited by the plaintiff have no application under the facts shown here.

There was some evidence that after her husband’s death the defendant said she would pay the plaintiff’s bill. But as she was not legally liable for the original debt, such subsequent promise to pay it cannot be enforced against her. As she contends, it was without consideration, and, further, being an oral promise to pay the debt of another, it falls within the defense of the statute of frauds. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Green, 185 Mass. 306. R. L. c. 74. O’Connell v. Mount Holyolce College, 174 Mass. 511. The entry must be

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 Mass. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-thayer-mass-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack