Skelton v. Brewster
8 Johns. 376
Opinion
This is not- a case within the statute of frauds. The promise of the defendant below, to pay the judgment against a third person, was founded on a new [377]*377and distinct consideration, which was the delivery of tne , r goods or such person, and the plaintiff s discharge or the judgment. It is then to be considered in the light of an original promise, and so the law was declared by this court, in the case of Leonard v. Vredenburgh. The judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Skelton v. Brewster, 8 Johns. 376 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).
8 Johns. 376 (Skelton v. Brewster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hedden v. Schneblin
104 S.W. 887 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
First National Bank v. Chalmers
3 Silv. Ct. App. 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Center v. McQuesten
18 Kan. 476 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1877)
Gaff v. Sims
45 Ind. 262 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Schindler v. Euell
45 How. Pr. 33 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1872)
Howard v. Coshow
33 Mo. 118 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1862)
Robinson v. Gilman
43 N.H. 485 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1862)
Virden v. Ellsworth
15 Ind. 144 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1860)
Mallory v. . Gillett
21 N.Y. 412 (New York Court of Appeals, 1860)
Fay v. Bell
1 Hill & Den. 251 (New York Supreme Court, 1843)
Farley v. Cleveland
4 Cow. 432 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)