10 Wend. 461 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1833
By the Court,
It is apparent, from comparing the declaration with the testimony, that the promise proved does not sustain any one count in the declaration. This objection, however, was not taken upon the trial; it could not be taken, therefore, upon the argument, as it is possible it might have been obviated at the trial.
The promise proved was to endorse a note for $150. This is the only promise which it is alleged was made or assented to by Mack. There is not a particle of testimony to shew that Mack ever assented to, or knew of the endorsement of the $600 note.
The judge correctly stated to the jury, that where the prom-i-e of one person to pay the debt of another was founded upon the consideration of surrendering up property levied on by an execution, the promise was an original undertaking, and need not be in writing to be valid ; that it was not within the statute of frauds. Whether the evidence proved such a case was submitted to the jury.
The judge also stated correctly the principle that one partner cannot bind his copartner, except in transactions relating to the business of the copartnership ; but he proceeded to say that principle was not applicable to this case; for if they be
New trial granted; costs to abide the event.