Brown v. Strait

19 Ill. 88
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1857·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Skinner, J.

One Collins owed the plaintiff below, forty dollars. Collins sold the defendants a mill, for which they paid him some money, and verbally promised to pay his debt to the plaintiff, but which, on demand of plaintiff, they refused to do. The court, on this state of fact, rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. The case of Eddy v. Roberts, 17 Ill. R. 505, decides the question here. In that case, the court say: “ Where one enters into a simple contract for the benefit of a third, such third person may maintain an action for breach, and such contract is not within the statute of frauds.”

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

Brown v. Strait, 19 Ill. 88 (Ill. 1857).

19 Ill. 88 (Brown v. Strait) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. Parrett
261 Ill. App. 200 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1931)
Allen v. Traylor
174 S.W. 923 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Central Electric Co. v. Sprague Electric Co.
120 F. 925 (Seventh Circuit, 1902)
Heath v. Coreth
32 S.W. 56 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1895)
Boals v. Nixon
26 Ill. App. 517 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1888)
Spann v. Cochran & Ewing
63 Tex. 240 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)
Hartford Fire Insurance v. Olcott
97 Ill. 439 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1881)
Mathers v. Carter
7 Ill. App. 225 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1880)
Bonnell v. Lewis
3 Ill. App. 283 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1878)
Lang v. Henry
54 N.H. 57 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1873)