Mays v. Joseph
This text of 34 Ohio St. (N.S.) 22 (Mays v. Joseph) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
That the promise of indemnity sued on was not invalid as being against public policy, was settled in Miller v. Rhoades, 20 Ohio St. 494, and cases therein cited.
2. The promise was an original and not a collateral engagement. There was no element of debt, default, or miscarriage of any third person in the agreement. The act against which the indemnity was promised was for the benefit of the promisor, and involved a liability to loss on the promisee, and was not within the statute of frauds. Green v. Cresswell, 10 Adolphus and Ellis, 453; Weld v. Nichols, 17 Pick. 538; Adams v. Dansey, 6 Bing. 506; Goodspeed v. Fuller, 46 Maine, 141; Marcy v. Crawford, 16 Conn. 549; Allaine v. Ouland, 2 John. Cases, 52; Browne on Statute of Frauds, chap. 10, p. 144 et seq.
Motion overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 Ohio St. (N.S.) 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mays-v-joseph-ohio-1877.