Shoemaker v. King
| Decision Date | 24 July 1861 |
| Citation | 40 Pa. 107 |
| Parties | Shoemaker <I>versus</I> King. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
John C. Kunkel, for defendant in error.—Property worth $1885 was transferred by Reese & Harper to Shoemaker, for a nominal consideration of $1500, while his claim against the firm was only $485, under a promise that he would pay all the debts of the firm. King's debt for $130.59 was among them; and, although the special verdict finds that there was no direct express promise by Shoemaker to King for the payment of this debt, it being a debt of the firm, was as certainly included within the promise, as that the whole includes the parts. The authorities cited by the court below fully establish the doctrine that a promise to one for the benefit of another, enables that person to sue in his own name: See Hinds v. Holdship, 2 Watts 104.
The promise of Shoemaker was in no sense collateral, but independent and absolute. He undertook for his own benefit, and for a valuable consideration, to pay another's debt in discharge of his own. The consideration was new and original, being the assignment to himself of all the effects of King's debtor, and the contract was between different parties. On each of these points, the authorities cited by the court below show the case not to be within the Statute of Frauds. The object of the statute being to prevent fraud, it would be a perversion of its intention to apply its provisions where the promissor has deprived the creditor of the means of collecting his debt, and received property far beyond the amount of his assumption.
The release of Harper by King was to render him competent as a witness, and could not operate to discharge Shoemaker.
If Reese & Harper remained liable to King, it was under a different and distinct contract from that upon which it was sought to hold Shoemaker. The relation of principal and surety does not hold between them and Shoemaker. The latter, having received the property, was in equity bound to pay this as his own proper debt.
The opinion of the court was delivered, July 24th 1861, by LOWRIE, C. J.
Harper & Reese sold out their partnership effects to Shoemaker, he agreeing verbally with them to pay their firm debts. King holds one of these firm debts and sues for it, relying on the contract just stated, and not showing that he was a party to it. Can he recover?
We think that the Act of 26th April 1855, § 1, forbids it by declaring that no action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watt v. Dininny
...Pa. 147; Kountz v. Holthouse, 85 Pa. 235; Wynn v. Wood, 97 Pa. 216; Shaaber v. Bushong, 105 Pa. 514; Stoudt v. Hine, 45 Pa. 30; Shoemaker v. King, 40 Pa. 107; Clymer v. Young, 54 Pa. 118. Mr. E. N. Willard (with him Mr. Everett Warren), for the appellees. As to the promise to pay the debt o......
-
McSorley v. Coyle
...applied to the payment of this liability and an action can be sustained against them by the party for whom it was so deposited: Shoemaker v. King, 40 Pa. 107; Stoudt v. Hine, 45 Pa. 30. The affidavit of sets up no other reason for refusing to pay the plaintiff's demand than the claim of Mus......
-
Lennox, To Use of Crawford's Exrs. v. Brower
...v. Wood, 134 Pa. 517. Joseph M. Pile, for appellee, cited: Nugent v. Wolfe, 111 Pa. 471; Branson v. Kitchenman, 148 Pa. 541; Shoemaker v. King, 40 Pa. 107; Act of April 1855, P.L. 308; Miner v. Graham, 24 Pa. 491; Hawes v. O'Reilly, 126 Pa. 440; Rosenthal v. Ehrlicher, 154 Pa. 396. Before S......
-
National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ben. Soc. of New York
...Torrens v. Campbell, 74 Pa. 470; Bellas v. Fagely, 19 Pa. 273; White v. Thielens, 106 Pa. 176; Hind v. Holdship, 2 Watts, 105; Shoemaker v. King, 40 Pa. 107; Freeman v. Penna. R. Co. 173 Pa. It was error to allow the jury to find, under the contracts and the evidence, that a satisfactory tr......