¶1The defendant was doubtless once liable for the goods sold and delivered to him, and upon the due bill which, upon paying part of the price of the goods, he gave to the plaintiffs for the balance. But upon his procuring and delivering to them the note of Robinson, as the bill of exceptions states, “ they at the same time gave up the said due bill to him in settlement,” md he orally promised to pay Robinson’s note at maturity, if Robinson did not. The claim of the plaintiffs, and the finding of the court, did not proceed upon the defendant’s liability for goods sold, but solely upon this oral promise of his, thereby necessarily assuming that his previous liability had been settled and discharged by the giving and receiving of the note of Robinson. Upon this state of facts, the only direct liability was that of Robinson upon his note, and the oral promise of the defendant to pay that note, if Robinson did not, was a collateral promise to pay Robinson’s debt, and as such within the statute of frauds. Gen. Sts. c. 105, § 1. Nelson v. Boynton, 3 Met. 396. Ames v. Foster, 106 Mass. 400. Brightman v. Hicks, 108 Mass. 246. Gill v. Herrick, 111 Mass. 501. Exceptions sustained.
120 Mass. 322
Dows v. Swett
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided May 6, 1876
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1876-05-06
Contract upon a promise of the defendant to pay the note of a third person to the plaintiff, upon default of the promisor. The answer set up the statute of frauds. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., without a jury, it appeared that the plaintiffs sold to the defendant certain goods, taking in part payment his due bill, which was reduced by subsequent payments to $200.
Relies on Ames v. Foster · Brightman v. Hicks · Gill v. Herrick
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1876-05-06
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1935
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →