Manley v. Geagan

105 Mass. 445
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Gray, J.

The promise of the defendant was to pay for work already done by the intestate for Borden & Company, without any previous contract with or employment by the defendant. The defendant owed Borden & Company nothing, and received no consideration, either from Borden & Company or from the intestate for his promise. The intestate neither did any work nor paid any money upon the faith of this promise, nor gave up any right or security against Borden & Company. Their original liability to him was not altered or affected by the defendant’s promise. This promise was therefore clearly a promise to answer for the lebt of another, and, not being in writing, was within the statute -.£ frauds. Gen. Sts. c. 105, § 1, cl. 2. Stone v. Symmes, 18 Pick. 467. Curtis v. Brown, 5 Cush. 488. Furbish v. Goodnow, 98 Mass. 296. Browne on St. of Frauds, §§ 172-174.

Judgment on the verdict for the defendant.

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

Manley v. Geagan, 105 Mass. 445 (Mass. 1870).

105 Mass. 445 (Manley v. Geagan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Werner Construction Co. v. Dorchester Savings Bank
45 Mass. App. Dec. 115 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1970)
Chicago Heights Lumber Co. v. Miller
76 N.E. 52 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1905)
Miller v. Chicago Heights Lumber Co.
117 Ill. App. 468 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Griffin v. Cunningham
67 N.E. 660 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Walton v. Mandeville, Dowling & Co.
9 N.W. 913 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1881)