Boutell v. Cowdin
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Trustees of Phillips Limerick Academy v. Davis (Mass. 1814)
- Bowers v. Hurd (Mass. 1813)
- Isenberg v. Woodson (D.C. 1933)
- Central Maine General Hospital v. Carter (Me. 1926)
- Rosentreter v. Brady (Mo. Ct. App. 1895)
- Capelle v. Trinity M. E. Church (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1875)
- Trustees of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Hardenbergh (New York Supreme Court 1874)
- Barnes v. Perine (New York Supreme Court 1850)
- Stoddard v. Cleveland (New York Supreme Court 1849)
- Ives v. Sterling (Mass. 1843)
- Congregational Society in Troy v. Goddard (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1835)
- Horn v. Fuller (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1834)
- Trustees of Amherst Academy v. Cowls (Mass. 1828)
- President of Middlebury College v. Williamson (Vt. 1828)
- Homes v. Dana (Mass. 1815)
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
observed that three objections had been made to the verdict in this case. First, that the promise declared on was not binding, as being made without a valuable consideration,
On this last objection the Court gave no opinion. But they considered the two former ones as well founded, and on both grounds they set aside the verdict, and ordered a new trial.
[In Bowers vs. Hurd, (10 Mass. Rep. 429,) Parker, C. J., in giving the opinion of the Court, said, “ We do not admit that when one voluntarily makes a written promise to another to pay a sum of money, the promise can be avoided merely by proving there was no legal and valuable consideration subsisting at the time, any more than, if he actually paid over the amount of such note, he can recover it back again, because he repents of his generosity. He had, indeed, precluded himself and his representatives from denying a consideration, where he has, under his hand, acknowledged one.” In Thatcher & Al. vs. Dinsmore, (5 Mass. Rep. 299,) however, Parsons, C. J., said that, as between promisor and promisee, want of consideration was a good defence. And see Fowler vs. Shearer, 7 Mass. Rep. 14. And this is undoubtedly the better law. Holliday vs. Atkinson, 8 D. & R. J63. And so it is said lately to have been held, (Hill vs. Buckminster, Admr., 5 Pick. 391, Middlesex,) although Morton, J., at Nisi Prius, ruled the contrary on the authority of Bowers vs. Hurd.— Ed.]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.