This was an action of assumpsit, tried before Saukdees, J., at the Pali Term, 1856, of Martin Sujierior Court. Albert 0. Shepherd owned, and carried on, a steam sawmill, near Williamston, and under a contract with the plaintiff, boarded himself and his mill-workmen, among whom -was his son, William Shepherd, at plaintiff’s house. The defendant was the administrator of A. G. Shepherd, who had recently died.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1991
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
The declaration -made by the defendant, that he would see the debt of his intestate paid, or that it should be paid, was, if a promise to pay at all, a special promise within the statute of frauds. Revised Stat, ch. 50, sec. 10, (Rev. Code, ch. 50, sec. 15). It was a promise either “ to answer the debt of another person,” or, by an administrator,
“
to answer damages out of his own estate,” and, therefore, no action could be brought upon it; because it was not in writing and signed as the statute requires.
¶2
If the propositions contended for by the plaintiff were sustainable in this case, they would defeat the effect of the statute in every case, by making the promise operate as a substitute of itself, for the original debt. Such a doctrine cannot, for a moment, be upheld.
¶3
The judgment of nonsuit was right, and must be affirmed.
