# Giles v. Ackles

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 16, 1848 · 9 Pa. 147

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6228066

## Case

- **Full name:** Giles v. Ackles
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 16, 1848
- **Citations:** 9 Pa. 147; 1848 Pa. LEXIS 188
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Burnside
- **Judges:** Burnside
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6228066

## Opinion text

Burnside, J.
The weight of authority is against the plaintiff in error; it being well settled, that an agreement to forbear to sue for a considerable time, is a consideration certain enough upon which to sustain an action: 1 Penn. Rep. 383. In New York it was held, that the adjournment of a suit is a sufficient consideration for a promise: Stewart v. McGuin, 1 Cow. 90 . This case is not unlike that of Pullin v. Stokes, 2 H. Bl. 312. There, A. having obtained judgment against B., and a fieri facias being delivered to the sheriff, in Qonsideration that A., at the special instance *148 and request of C., had requested the sheriff not to execute the writ, C.„promised to pay A. the debt and costs, together with the sheriff’s poundage, bailiff’s fees, and other charges, on a judgment by default and error brought, the promise was holden to be binding on C., though it was not averred that the sheriff did in fact desist from the execution of the writ. Here the execution was in the hands of the sheriff against Brown, who was down the river with coal. Giles promised to pay the debt if the plaintiff’s attorney would stay the writ for six weeks. The plaintiff’s attorney agreed to this. Nothing was done on the execution until Giles requested the attorney to proceed with the execution against Brown. If the jury believed the evidence, the plaintiff in error had no ground to stand on. Indeed, the consideration of forbearance generally has been held sufficient, without setting forth a specific time: 4 Johns. Rep. 239; see Cro. James, 683.
Judgment affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6228066. Public record. Not legal advice.