Olmstead v. Greenly

Decided May 15, 1820

New York Supreme Court · decided 1820-05-15

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration con-count for money paid, The three first counts, between them, tamed three special counts, and &c. money had and received, &c. though there was some slight variation stated, in substance, that the plaintiff was an endorser of a promissory note for one thousand dollars, made by E. Bris-f0¡ and Justin Higgins, for their own benefit and accommodation, payable at the office of the Utica Insurance Company, to the plaintiff and…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1820-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2010

8 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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1We are of opinion that this is not a case within the statute of frauds. It is not a mere collateral undertaking, ,or agreement, on the part of the defendant, to pay the debt of Bristol; but'was an original contract, on an independent consideration, received by the defendant, by the procurement of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the same ground of action as if he had delivered his own goods to the defendant, as the consideration of the promise. (Cartling v. Aubert, 2 East’s Rep. 324.) The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to judgment.

¶2Judgment for the plaintiff