eastwood_kenyon1840
Defendant may shew, under non assumpsit, that the promise was within stat. 29 Car. 2, c. 3, 8, 4, and was not in writing. Section 4 of that statute, as to promises to pay the debt of another, contemplates only promises made to the person to whom another is liabIe; therefore a promise by defendant to plaintiff to pay A. B, a debt due from plaintiff to A. B. is not within the statute. A pecuniary benefit, voluntarily conferred by plaintiff and accepted by defendant, is not such a consideration as will support an action of assumpsit on a subsequent express promise by defendant to reimburse plaintiff. There where the declaration in assumpsit stated that plaintiff was executor of the father of defendant’s wife, who died intestate as to his land, leaving defendant’s wife, an infant, his only child and heir ; that plaintiff acted as her guardian and agent during infancy, and in that capacity expended money on her maintenance and education, in the management and improvement of the land, and in paying the interest of a mortgage on it; that the estate was benefitted thereby to the full amount of such expenditure ; that plaintiff, being unable to repay himself out of the personal assets, borrowed money of A, B, on his promissory note; that defendant’s wife, when of age and before marriage, assented to the loan and the note, and requested plaintiff to give up the maniagement of the property to her, and promised to pay the note, and did in fact pay one year’s interest on it; that plaintiff thereupon gave up the management accordingly ; that defendant, after his marriage, assented to the plaintiff’s accounts, and upon such accounting a certain sum was found due to plaintiff for monies so spent and borrowed ; that defendant, in right of his wife, received all the benefit of plaintiff’s said services and expenditure, and thereupon in consideration of the premises, promised plaintiff to pay and discharge the note : Held, on motion in arrest of judgment, that the declaration was bad as not disclosing a sufficient consideratjon for defendant’s promise.
[1840] EngR 80, (1840) 11 Ad and E 438, (1840) 113 ER 482
Commonlii
Cited by:
Cited – Shadwell v Shadwell and Another CCP 11-Jan-1860
. .
Cited – Shadwell v Shadwell And Another 1858
. .
Cited – Jayawickreme and Another v Amarasuriya Since Deceased PC 4-Jun-1918
(Ceylon) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.309506
