Rollins v. Crocker
62 Me. 244
Opinion
Rescript.
From the plaintiff’s own testimony, it appears that he first made a contract with the defendant’s husband, and that subsequently she- promised to see him paid; which promise is not in writing, and is, therefore, within the Statute of Frauds.
[246]*246The defendant was also a married woman, and there is no proof that her promise was subsequent to the Public Laws of 1866, c. 52, but the inference is, that it was before that, and for this reason it is void. Lee v. Lannahan, 59 Maine, 478.
Motion and exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rollins v. Crocker, 62 Me. 244 (Me. 1873).
62 Me. 244 (Rollins v. Crocker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.