Allshouse v. Ramsey

• Decision Date: 22 March 1841
• Citation: 6 Whart. 331,37 Am.Dec. 417
• Parties: ALLSHOUSE v. RAMSAY.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

6 Whart. 331

37 Am.Dec. 417

ALLSHOUSE v. RAMSAY.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 22, 1841

IN ERROR.

1. The presumption of the law is, that a contract is intended to be performed in the place or country in which it is made, if there be not an express agreement or necessary implication that it is to be performed elsewhere; and whenever such understanding is not apparent, the law of the contract is the law of the place where it was made.

2. On a contract made in one state of the union for the payment of money, the debtor is not bound to go to another state to tender the money to the creditor.

3. Where A. residing in Pennsylvania, had obtained a judgment against B., who resided in New Jersey, and the defendant, who also resided in New Jersey, made a verbal promise to pay the money for B. if A. would wait a certain time: it was held, that this promise was void under the statute of frauds of New Jersey, and that an action could not be maintained upon it against the defendant in the courts of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton county.

This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, in an action brought by Adam Ramsay against John M. Allshouse.

The following case was stated for the opinion of the court below.

" On the trial of this cause before the justice, Jacob Winters Esq., on behalf of the plaintiff, testified: " That he was a justice of the peace in Warren county, New Jersey where the defendant also resides. That the plaintiff had obtained judgment before him against one Jacob Vannata, for eighteen dollars debt, and eighty-two cents costs, and directed the witness to issue execution by a certain day. That on that day he called on the defendant, with whom Vannata lived, and requested the defendant to pay the money for Vannata, who was working for him, and save him the costs. He refused then, alleging that he was, in all probability then behind and in debt to him; but said if Ramsay would wait three months, to the first of August, he (the defendant,) would pay him the money; the witness replied that he would see the plaintiff that day, he expected, and he would let him know. That he saw the plaintiff, and told him, who said ‘ he would do it, provided he would positively pay the money at the expiration of three months.’ The witness testified he told this to the defendant, who said he would the witness requested a due bill from the defendant, which he refused, alleging that his word was as good as his bond. On the first of August, the witness requested payment of the defendant, who replied, he couldn't then. " Ramsay told me to ask him again; I did so, and he said he would not pay at all. This conversation with Allshouse all took place in New Jersey, where all the parties lived but the plaintiff who had shortly before removed to Pennsylvania. Allshouse was at that time in partnership with one Peter A. Miller. Vannata, I expect, was at work for the partnership, though I don't know."

In the state of New Jersey there was at the time of the above transactions, and still is in force there, an act of the legislature of that state, entitled, " An act for the prevention of frauds and perjuries," passed the 26th of November, 1794, the fourteenth section of which is in these words, " No action shall be brought, whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise, to answer damages out of his own estate, or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriages of other persons, & c., unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person, thereunto by him or her lawfully authorised."

Although the defendant denies that he promised, as the witness has detailed, and believes that he was misunderstood by the esquire; yet, such being his recollection, and as no other person heard the conversation to explain it otherwise, it is agreed that the above facts and testimony be taken as true, in connection with the foregoing act of assembly; and that if the court be of opinion that the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict thereupon, that judgment be entered in this cause for the plaintiff with costs; but if the court be of a contrary opinion, that their judgment be entered in favour of the defendant, with costs; either party to be at liberty to sue out a writ of error. The transcript of the aforementioned judgment and act of assembly of the state of New Jersey, to be considered as part of the case stated."

After argument, the Court of Common Pleas ordered judgment to be entered for the plaintiff, and gave the following opinion.

" The undertaking of the defendant was entered into in the state of New Jersey. By the laws of that state, a promise to pay the debt of another is void if not in writing. A distinction has been taken by courts in regard to this subject, between collateral promises, and original undertakings founded upon a newly superadded consideration. The former are within the statute, the latter are not. Here the original debtor was in the service of the defendant. That the promise was founded on the supposition that he would continue in his service is pretty evident, for the defendant refused to pay unless time was given, as the original debtor had lifted his wages up to that time. Whether the debtor did continue in the employment of the defendant afterwards, and, if he did, whether he lifted his wages or not, is not made part of the case, so that the facts are not sufficiently stated on this point.

At the time the contract was made, Ramsay lived in Pennsylvania. The promise was to pay him the money. This engagement bound the defendant to pay the money to Ramsay. Pennsylvania was the place where the contract was to be executed by the payment of the money. That being the case, the liability of the defendant is to be tested by the laws of the place where the contract was to be executed. The case discloses merits sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to judgment under the laws of this state. Therefore judgment is rendered for the plaintiff in the case stated."

The following errors were assigned.

" 1. The court erred in directing judgment to be entered for the plaintiff below; they should, upon the facts stated, have entered judgment for the defendant.

2. The court erred in declaring the promise stated to have been an original promise.

3. The court erred in stating that the promise alleged was made in reference to the laws of...