Allen Co v. Ferguson
Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
Citation | 85 U.S. 1,21 L.Ed. 854,18 Wall. 1 |
Parties | ALLEN & CO. v. FERGUSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
P. H. Allen & Co. sued A. H. Ferguson upon a promissory note, dated March 20th, 1867, payable one day after date, with interest.
Ferguson appeared and pleaded his discharge in bankruptcy in bar to the action.
The plaintiffs replied a new promise in writing made while the proceedings in bankruptcy were pending. This promise the plaintiffs averred that they relied upon, and in consequence of it made no efforts to collect their debt. The alleged promise was contained in the following letter, which the plaintiffs made part of their replication, viz.:
'CROCKETT'S BLUFF, ARKANSAS, January 7th, 1868.
MESSRS. T. H. ALLEN & CO.
was order'd by me for him. William Ferguson will be in Memphis betwixt this and the first of March, and will call and see you on bisness matters betwixt me and you'self. All will be right betwixt me and my just creditors. Don't think hard of me. Attibet my poverty to the unprincipel'd Yankey. Let me heare from you as usel.
'Yours, very respectfully,
'A. H. FERGUSON.'
To this replication the defendant demurred. The demurrer was sustained by the Circuit Court, and this appeal was taken by the plaintiffs.
Mr. A. H. Garland, for the plaintiff in error; Messrs. Clark and Williams, contra.
The question is, does the letter of the defendant, set forth in the replication, contain a sufficient promise to pay the debt in suit?
All the authorities agree in this, that the promise by which a discharged debt is revived must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal. It may be an absolute or a conditional promise, but in either case it must be unequivocal, and the occurrence of the condition must be averred if the promise be conditional. The rule is different in regard to the defence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Held v. Pokorny
...with rectitude, purity, or good morals; contrary to conscience or moral law; wicked, vicious, licentious." 10 Allen v. Ferguson, 85 U.S. 1, 4-5, 21 L.Ed. 854 (1874) (Promise of a debtor to do what is "right" as to his creditors does not revive the 11 Compare Jeremy Bentham, Works, Vol. X (1......
-
Brockman v. Sieverling
...after their release by operation of law, did not of itself revive the original obligation. St. John v. Stephenson, 90 Ill. 83; Allen v. Ferguson, 18 Wall. 1; Porter's Adm'r v. Porter, 31 Maine, 169; Merriam v. Bailey, 1 Cush. 77; White v. Cushing, 30 Maine, 267; Stark v. Stinson, 23 New Ham......
-
Coe v. Rosene
... ... Elwell v ... Cumner, 136 Mass. 102; Brewer v. Boynton, 71 ... Mich. 254, 39 N.W. 49; Allen v. Ferguson, 85 U.S. 1, ... 21 L.Ed. 854; Yoxtheimer v. Keyser, 11 Pa. 364, 51 ... Am. Dec. 555; Bartlett v. Peck, 5 La. Ann. 669; ... ...
-
Pearsall v. Tabour
... ... unconditional, and present promise to pay. Smith v ... Stanchfield, 84 Minn. 343, 87 N.W. 917; Allen v ... Ferguson, 18 Wall. 1, 21 L.Ed. 854; International ... Harvester Co. v. Lyman, 90 Minn. 275, 96 N.W. 87; ... Brewer v. Boynton, 71 Mich ... ...