Van Horne's v. Brady
This text of 1 Wright 451 (Van Horne's v. Brady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The book is not of itself evidence.
It was then proved that Van Horne kept regular books, by those dealing with him. That he had a clerk, one Baldwin, who made the entries, or part of them, but having since married the widow, is interested as one of the distributees of the estate.
Baldwin was then called as a witness.
WRIGHT, J. • The witness is incompetent to testify to the jury, but he may relate these matters to the court, as circumstances going to show that the books ought to be admitted to the jury.
[464]*4641. The promise is not in writing, and is to pay the debt of another.
2. There is no count in the declaration upon such promise. He cited 1 Ch. Pl. 339.
■453] * WRIGHT, J. An undertaking to pay the debt of another is special; the law does not imply or raise such an undertaking, from a pre-existing debt. The debt in this case was owing by another person — the person against whom it is sought to raise an assumpsit was not bound to pay, and owed no duty, from which the promise could be inferred. Without declaring specially in such a case, a recovery cannot be had, even if the promise is in writing. The evidence is rejected.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Wright 451, 1 Ohio Ch. 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-hornes-v-brady-ohio-1833.