Opinion

Manley v. Geagan

  • 105 Mass. 445
Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Filed
Oct 15, 1870
Status
Published
Author
Gray
On the bench
Gray
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 85.1%

The opinion

Gray, J.

The promise of the defendant was to pay for work already done by the intestate for Borden & Company, without any previous contract with or employment by the defendant. The defendant owed Borden & Company nothing, and received no consideration, either from Borden & Company or from the intestate for his promise. The intestate neither did any work nor paid any money upon the faith of this promise, nor gave up any right or security against Borden & Company. Their original liability to him was not altered or affected by the defendant’s promise. This promise was therefore clearly a promise to answer for the lebt of another, and, not being in writing, was within the statute -.£ frauds. Gen. Sts. c. 105, § 1, cl. 2. Stone v. Symmes, 18 Pick. 467 . Curtis v. Brown, 5 Cush. 488 . Furbish v. Goodnow, 98 Mass. 296 . Browne on St. of Frauds, §§ 172-174.

Judgment on the verdict for the defendant.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.