Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel
This text of 8 Johns. 120 (Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The declaration does not state a consideration for the promise. The defendant, as administrator, promises to pay a debt in the right of others. The note states, that the value received was by third persons, and there is no consideration or inducement for the promise. The writing r> pels any presumption of consideration from the words “ value receivedbecause it admits that the value was received by “ John Bregan, and his heirs,” and the defendant signs as administrator. The case of Rann v. Hughes (7 Term Rep. 350. note. 7 Bro. C. C. 550.) is in point. Judgment must be for the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Johns. 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ten-eyck-v-vanderpoel-nysupct-1811.