Sec. 619. Effect Of Independent Liability Of Party Receiving Benefit. If B Is To Furnish Goods To C And Is To Hold C And A Both Liable
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 619. Effect Of Independent Liability Of Party Receiving Benefit. If B Is To Furnish Goods To C And Is To Hold C And A Both Liable
C. 523; 34 S. E. 686; Grand Forks, etc., Co. v. Tourtelot, 7 N. D. 587; 75 N W. 901; Kesler v. Cheadle, 12 Okla. 489; 72 Pac. 367; Mackey v. Smith, 21 Or. 598; 28 Pac. 974; First National Bank v. Cotton Co.,
24 Tex. Civ. App. 645; 60 S. W. 828; Hamilton v. Mfg. Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 338; 39 S. W. 641; Hopkins v. Stefan, 77 Wis. 45; 45 N. W. 676.
5Marr v. Ry., 121 la. 117; 96 N. W. 716; King v. Lumber Co., 80 Minn. 274; 83 N. W. 170; Breeler v. Finnel, 85 Mo. App. 438; Doremus v. Daniels (N. J. Eq.), 20 Atl. 147.
6 Harlan v. Harlan, 102 la. 701; 72 N. W. 286.
7Shafer v. Cherry, 5 Colo. App. 513; 39 Pac. 345.
8 Cox v. Peltier, 159 Ind. 355; 65 N. E. 6.
9 Milliken v. Warner, 62 Conn. 51;
25 Atl. 450; Mitchell v. Beck, 88 Mich. 342; 50 N. W. 305; Sproule v. Hopper (Miss.). 16 So. 901; Lyons v. Daugherty (Tex. Civ. App.) , 26 S. W. 146.
10 Stein v. Blake, 56 111. App. 525; James v. Carson, 94 Wis. 632; 69 N. W. 1004; Murphey v. Gates, 81 Wis. 370; 51 N. W. 573; Ivenson v. Caldwell, 3 Wyom. 485; 27 Pac. 563.
11 Wellman v. Jones, 124 Ala. 580; 27 So. 416; Crowder v. Keys, 91 Ga. 180; 16 S. E. 986; Brandner v. Krebbs, 54 111. App. 652; Biglane v. Hicks, - Miss. -; 33 So. 413; Rounsevel v. Osgood, 68 N. H. 418; 44 Atl. 535; Boston v. Farr, 148 Pa. St. 220; 23 Atl. 901; Speer v. Mes-chine, 46 S. C. 505; 24 S. E. 329; Clark v. Waterman. 7 Vt. 76; 29 Am. Dec. 150.
12 Proprietors of the Upper Locks v. Abbott, 14 N. H. 157; 40 Am. Dec. 184.
13 Backus v. Clark, 1 Kan. 303; 83 Am. Dec. 437; Keyes v. Allen, 65 Vt. 667; 27 Atl. 319.
14 Conradt v. Sullivan, 45 Ind. 180; 15 Am. Rep. 261; Greene v. McDonald, 70 Vt. 372; 40 Atl. 1035.
15Manary v. Runyon, 43 Or, 495; 73 Pac. 1028.
therefor, A's promise is in effect to pay the debt of another and his promise is within this clause of the statute of frauds, if the real transaction is not a joint contract by A and C on one side and B on the other.1 However, the fact that B made the charge on his books against A and C jointly is not conclusive that the liability was not A's alone.2 On the other hand the fact that B made the charge against A is not sufficient to show that the real transaction was not a guaranty.3 If the contract is really a joint one between A and C on one side and B on the other, A's liability is not within the statute.4
Continue to:
My Books
