Roff v. Roff

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Roff v. Roff

3 N.J.L. 419

DecidedMay 15, 1808

StatusPublished

This text of 3 N.J.L. 419 (Roff v. Roff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roff v. Roff, 3 N.J.L. 419 (N.J. 1808).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The defendant below, was under no legal obligation to pay the sum demanded. If liable at all, it is because he was under a moral obligation to pay, and being under such obligation, he made an express promise; for a mere moral obligation will not raise an implied promise.¹ The plaintiff below having released and discharged the debt, on the consideration of the defendant’s having assigned all his real and personal property to his creditors, of whom the plaintiff was one, and who received his portion thereof, it would be going great lengths to say that a moral obligation remained. But admitting it did, evidence of an express promise was not made out; giving out in conversation that he intended to pay when he was able, or when it was convenient, is too loose; the action cannot be sustained.

Judgment reversed.

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

By the Court.

The defendant below, was under no legal obligation to pay the sum demanded. If liable at all, it is because he was under a moral obligation to pay, and being under such obligation, he made an express promise; for a mere moral obligation will not raise an implied promise.¹ The plaintiff below having released and discharged the debt, on the consideration of the defendant’s having assigned all his real and personal property to his creditors, of whom the plaintiff was one, and who received his portion thereof, it would be going great lengths to say that a moral obligation remained. But admitting it did, evidence of an express promise was not made out; giving out in conversation that he intended to pay when he was able, or when it was convenient, is too loose; the action cannot be sustained.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 N.J.L. 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roff-v-roff-nj-1808.