Mays v. Joseph

34 Ohio St. (N.S.) 22
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1877·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

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

Mays v. Joseph, 34 Ohio St. (N.S.) 22 (Ohio 1877).

34 Ohio St. (N.S.) 22 (Mays v. Joseph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marcy v. Crawford
16 Conn. 549 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1844)