Barry v. Law

Decision Date01 January 1802
PartiesBARRY et al. v. LAW. [1]
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

The case in evidence was that Bryan had contracted with Mr. Law to build stables and furnish materials; that Bryan purchased of the plaintiffs planks, etc., to the amount of $135.97. Bryan, at the foot of the plaintiffs' account rendered, drew an order on Mr. Law, in these words:

'Sir: Please to pay to R. & G. Barry the above account, being lumber used in building your stables, and charge your humble serv't. B. Bryan.
'To Tho. Law.'

This order was not on stamped paper.

The defendant on the 6th of December, 1800, made an entry in his books, as follows: 'Stables on Sq. 693, Dr. To am't of Capt. Barry's bill, $135.97, '-- and promised the plaintiffs that, if so much was due by him to Bryan, the bill should be paid.

THE COURT refused the order to go in evidence to the jury, because it was not stamped.

They also instructed the jury that the plaintiffs could not recover on the defendant's promise, unless he had signed a note in writing promising to pay, etc., that its being a conditional promise did not take it out of the statute of frauds, and that the entry in the defendant's books was not a sufficient note in writing to charge the defendant.

They refused to instruct the jury that, if at the time of promise the defendant was indebted to Bryan in a sum equal to the plaintiffs' claim, the evidence was applicable to the count for money had and received.

KILTY, C. J.

absent.

---------

Notes:

[1] this case has been heretofore reported in 1 Cranch, C.C. 77, and is now published in this series, so as to include therein all circuit and district court cases elsewhere reported which have been inadvertently omitted from the Federal Cases.

---------

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Cramer v. Munkres
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 16 Diciembre 1905
    ...in as a party. A conditional promise to pay the debt of another is within the statute of frauds. (Clapp v. Webb, 52 Wis. 638; Barry v. Law, 89 F. 582.) was incumbent upon the plaintiffs below to prove that there was a surplus in the fund applicable to the payment of the order in suit; and i......
  • Western Ranches v. Custer County, Mont.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • 28 Junio 1898

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT