Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel

8 Johns. 120
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1811·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel, 8 Johns. 120 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

8 Johns. 120 (Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Perryman & Co. v. McCall
66 Ala. 402 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1880)
Jones v. Richardson
46 Mass. 247 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1842)