Converse v. Parmly

The complaint apparently declares upon a primary agreement of defendant to respond for losses, and not a guaranty that Prescott & Brooks shall respond for them. Indeed, no indebtedness of Prescott & Brooks to plaintiff for such losses is alleged, nor is there sufficient in the complaint to warrant such a holding. When the proofs are in the case may present a different aspect, but on the pleadings alone the demurrer must be overruled. Leave to answer within 20 days.