Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1811

Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel

Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided May 15, 1811
8 Johns. 120
Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The declaration does not state a consideration for the promise. The defendant, as administrator, promises to pay a debt in the right of others. The note states, that the value received was by third persons, and there is no consideration or inducement for the promise. The writing r> pels any presumption of consideration from the words “ value receivedbecause it admits that the value was received by “ John Bregan, and his heirs,” and the defendant signs as administrator. The case of Rann v. Hughes (7 Term Rep. 350. note. 7 Bro. C. C. 550.) is in point. Judgment must be for the defendant.

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