Stowell v. Gram

• Decision Date: 07 January 1904
• Citation: 184 Mass. 562,69 N.E. 342
• Parties: STOWELL v. GRAM et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

184 Mass. 562

69 N.E. 342

STOWELL v. GRAM et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 7, 1904

COUNSEL

John E. Hannigan and Wallace Wilson, for plaintiffs.

G. W Anderson, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

In the present case the presiding justice directed a verdict for the defendants, and reported to this court the question of law whether there was any evidence that would warrant a verdict for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs made a contract for the manufacture of certain articles with one Holt, who became financially embarrassed after he had begun the work, and then arranged with these defendants that they should take a bill of sale of certain property and an assignment of this contract, and assist him in his embarrassment. The question is whether there was evidence which would warrant a finding that the contract between the plaintiffs and Holt was given up, and that a new contract of the same kind, covering the unfinished work, was made between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants cannot be held liable upon a promise to see that Holt's contract was performed, for such a promise would be within the statute of frauds. To establish a novation on which the plaintiffs can charge these defendants, it must be proved that the plaintiffs released Holt from his obligations under the contract, and agreed to look to the defendants alone, and that as a part of the same arrangement Holt released the plaintiffs from their liability to him, and that the defendants agreed with the plaintiffs to perform the contract as their own. The writing under which the defendants acquired their rights from Holt was a bill of sale of the tools fixtures, machinery, and office furniture used in his business, and the furniture and the furnishings of every kind in a certain dwelling house. The writing also included an assignment of this contract with the plaintiffs. The dwelling house was referred to in the testimony as a lodging house which cost Holt $1,200. Holt testified that the bill of sale was given as security to the defendants for money which they were to lend him and furnish for his assistance. This testimony was uncontradicted, and was confirmed by other facts in the case. The conduct of the parties and the entire evidence were inconsistent with any other theory than that the title of the defendants under the writing was held only as security. There was no testimony that Holt...