Baker v. Cornwall (1854) · DecisionDepot

Baker v. Cornwall

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jan 15, 1854Published

Before: Heydeneeldt, Murray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a bond serving as an original undertaking to pay the debt of another is not subject to the Statute of Frauds, even if the consideration is not expressed.

Issues

Whether a bond conditioned on the payment of another's debt is an original undertaking or a collateral promise subject to the Statute of Frauds.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The bond is a simple, original undertaking, and although the condition is to pay the debt of another it operates merely by way of defeasance to the undertaking, and does not alter its character.”

Synopsis

Appeal from tbe Sixth Judicial District.

Plaintiffs sued upon tbe bond of defendants, [16] conditioned for *the payment of tbe interest upon a mortgage executed by defendant D. G. Whitney, to one Nathaniel P. Sheldon.

The defendant Whitney, at the trial, moved the Court for a nonsuit, which the Court granted, and the plaintiffs appealed.

The bond conforms with the requirements of the Act concerning Fraudulent Conveyances and Contracts, in respect to the expression of a consideration. (24 Wend. 35; Story on Contracts, 435, Sec. 431, p. 448, Sec. 855; Smith on Contracts, 118.) The undertaking is original as to both defendants. The consideration, therefore, need not be ex pressed, but it may be shown aliunde. (Story on Contracts, 952, Secs. 860, 861.)

Mr. J. Heydeneeldt delivered the opinion of the Court

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred. It seems from the argument at bar that the case was decided by the District Court on the ground that the bond which is the cause of action is an undertaking to pay the debt of another, and having no consideration expressed is within the Statute of Frauds.

The bond is a simple, original undertaking, and although the condition is to pay the debt of another it operates merely by way of defeasance to the undertaking, and does not alter its character. The fact that the defendant chose to put his obligation in that form only proves that he selected to be originally liable. The declaration however is very imperfect. It should have been a declaration upon the bond, setting out the condition, assigning breaches, and praying for the debt and damages; whereas it seems merely to be a count in assumpsit on the condition. This however was not taken advantage of by demurrer, and, therefore, cannot affect the decision of the main question raised in the argument. It is mentioned here as an indication of our earnest desire for correct pleading.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Baker v. Cornwall

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief