Miles v. Driscoll

87 N.E. 579, 201 Mass. 318, 1909 Mass. LEXIS 735
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 27, 1909·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Hammond, J.

The declaration sets out that the plaintiffs “ desired greater security for their account than the credit of ” Crockwell, with whom they had made a contract to supply the inside finish and flooring for the defendant’s house. They were still to hold Crockwell. There was no novation, as in cases like Griffin v. Cunningham, 183 Mass. 505. The real contract, therefore, set out in the declaration was an oral contract to pay the debt of another, and was within the statute of frauds. O' Connell v. Mount Holyoke College, 174 Mass. 511, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Miles v. Driscoll, 87 N.E. 579, 201 Mass. 318, 1909 Mass. LEXIS 735 (Mass. 1909).

87 N.E. 579 (Miles v. Driscoll) — 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)
Pope & Cottle Co. v. Wheelwright
133 N.E. 106 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Ribock v. Canner
105 N.E. 462 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)