Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1809

Forster v. Fuller

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided October 15, 1809 · Parsons

6 Mass. 58

Cases that cite this one

47 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Andrus v. Blazzard (Utah 1901)
Overton v. Beavers (Ark. 1858)
Pinney v. Administrators of Johnson (New York Supreme Court 1832)
Zanoni v. Hudon, No. Cv 91-0391234s (Aug. 25, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Wingate v. McGrail (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1953)
Landwehr v. Holland City State Bank (Mich. 1938)
Farmers' State Bank v. Youngquist (S.D. 1928)
Smith v. Wagner (New York Supreme Court 1919)
Payne v. Rech (Ohio Ct. App. 1917)
Condon v. Exton-Hall Brokerage & Vessel Agency (City of New York Municipal Court 1913)
Lothrop v. Duffield (Mich. 1903)
McCoy v. Lane (Neb. 1902)
Ward v. Venner (Mass. 1899)
Taylor v. Lovering (Mass. 1898)
Citizens' Bank v. Millet (Ky. Ct. App. 1898)
United States Mortgage Co. v. Sperry (Supreme Court of the United States 1891)
Roger Williams National Bank v. Groton Manufacturing Co. (R.I. 1889)
Schmittler v. . Simon (N.Y. 1886)
Robinson v. Springfield Co. (Fla. 1885)
Moran v. Risley (New York Marine Court 1879)
Popple v. Day (Mass. 1878)
Shoe & Leather National Bank v. Dix (Mass. 1877)
Ainsworth v. Backus (New York Supreme Court 1875)
Sperry v. Fanning (Ill. 1875)
Bicknell v. Bicknell (Mass. 1873)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Parsons, C. J.

The plaintiff’s right to recover upon the facts agreed is the point submitted to the Court in this action. Two objections are made by the defendant ;•— that the note is without a sufficient consideration; —and that, by force of it, Scott or his estate are only chargeable.

As to the first objection, it is true that the defendant has received no consideration for signing the note; but it is equally true that the plaintiff, by discharging Scott from prison, has no remedy on his judgment; which is a sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise ; for a damage to the promisee, as well as benefit to the promisor, is a sufficient consideration to support a promise.

The other objection is, that the defendant is not personally bound, as he contracted only as guardian of Scott. — As an administrator cannot by his promise bind the estate of the intestate, so neither can the guardian by his contract bind the person or estate of his ward. Unless, therefore, the defendant is liable to pay this note, the *49plaintiff has'no remedy. But we are satisfied that the defendant is liable. It is his promise, made on a sufficient consideration; and although in the note he states that he promises as guardian, yet he is personally bound ; his trust being inserted only to entitle himself to indemnity from his ward, with which the plaintiff has no concern. According to the agreement of the parties, the defendant must be called. (1), (2)

Thatcher & Al. vs. Dinsmore, ante, vol v. p. 299.

[The promise was made as guardian, and, therefore, would seem to stand on the same footing as a promise made by a defendant as executor, after the death of the testator, which, it has been held, does not render him liable de horns propriis. — Powell vs. Graham, 1 B. Moore, 316, 317. — 7 Taunt. 580. — Ellis vs. Bowen, For. 98. — Segar vs. Atkinson, 1 H. Bl. 103. — 2 Chitty's Pl. 6th Lond. edit. 70. — Partridge vs. Court, 5 Price, 412.— 7 Price, 591. — King vs. Thorn, 1 D. & E. 407. — Cowell vs. Watts, 6 East, 405. — Powley vs. Newton, 6 Taunt. 459. — Roan vs. Hughes, 7 Brown, P. C. 550. —Ed.]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.