Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Tenn. 543

Moore v. Stovall

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1879

Tennessee Supreme Court · decided 1879-04-15

<p>Statute op Frauds. Promise. Case: J. bought a tract of land of M. and AL, for which, as part payment, he executed a note for $2,680. A lien was retained on the face of the deed for the payment of the purchase money. J. afterward sold the land to S., who paid a part of the consideration in cash, and the deed recited that “ in further consideration of this conveyance S. assumes the payment of the $2,680 note ” executed by J. to M. and M. Upon suit brought by M. and M. against S., Held, that plaintiffs could recover, and that the promise was not within the statute of fraud.*</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1967

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Turney, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The statute which provides that no action shall be brought whereby to charge a party upon a special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, unless such promise or agreement be in writing, etc., does not, in the opinion of a majority *544of the court, apply to the facts of this case, and can in no way effect it. The land was bought at a stipulated price, to be paid at stated times, one of the payments to be made to Moore & Miller. While it is true the vendor was indebted in that sum to Moore & Miller, and such indebtedness was the inducement moving him to have the defendant undertake to pay to Moore & Miller, still it was nevertheless an undertaking by the defendant to pay his own debt, and not the debt of the vendor of the land, and although the payment, when made, would have the effect to discharge the vendee’s obligation to Moore & Miller, yet that indebtedness would be in no manner changed or altered before the payment. The defendant undertakes and promises alone for himself for a valuable consideration. He was satisfied with the price, and it can make no difference to him to whom he shall pay it, so he complies with the terms of his own contract. By his contract he created an indebtedness from himself to Moore & Miller, and should not be heard to gainsay it. We think the case of Campbell v. Findley, 3 Plum., 330, is unsustainable, and must be overruled.

¶3He verse the judgment.

/70/tenn/543 · .json · Public domain