G. H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Ehrenworth

Court of Appeals of Texas

G. H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Ehrenworth

1 White & W. 432

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 12, 1881

DocketNo. 1061, Op. Book No. 2, p. 373

StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 432 (G. H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Ehrenworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

G. H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Ehrenworth, 1 White & W. 432 (Tex. Ct. App. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 786. Statute of frauds; when promise to pay debt of another is not within the. It is well settled that if one, for a sufficient consideration, undertakes to pay a debt due to another by a third party, such an undertaking is not within the statute of frauds. [Thomas v. Hammond, 47 Tex. 42; Monroe v. Buchanan, 27 Tex. 241; Rollison v. Hope, 18 Tex. 446.] In this case, one Turnbrough was indebted to appellee. Turnbrough turned over to appellant wood and monies due him by appellant, and in consideration thereof appellant agreed to pay certain debts owing by Turnbrough, of which appellee’s debt was one. This agreement between Turnbrough and appellant was made known to appellee, and agreed to by him, and .he released Turnbrough from the debt, and looked to appellant for its payment. This suit was against appellant to recover the debt, and in the court below appellee recovered judgment for the debt, and the court of appeals held that the undertaking of appellant was not within the statute of frauds, and that there was no error in the' judgment.

Affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 786. Statute of frauds; when promise to pay debt of another is not within the. It is well settled that if one, for a sufficient consideration, undertakes to pay a debt due to another by a third party, such an undertaking is not within the statute of frauds. [Thomas v. Hammond, 47 Tex. 42; Monroe v. Buchanan, 27 Tex. 241; Rollison v. Hope, 18 Tex. 446.] In this case, one Turnbrough was indebted to appellee. Turnbrough turned over to appellant wood and monies due him by appellant, and in consideration thereof appellant agreed to pay certain debts owing by Turnbrough, of which appellee’s debt was one. This agreement between Turnbrough and appellant was made known to appellee, and agreed to by him, and .he released Turnbrough from the debt, and looked to appellant for its payment. This suit was against appellant to recover the debt, and in the court below appellee recovered judgment for the debt, and the court of appeals held that the undertaking of appellant was not within the statute of frauds, and that there was no error in the' judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 White & W. 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-h-s-a-ry-co-v-ehrenworth-texapp-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack