Olmstead v. Greenly

May 15, 1820
Reporters:
Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that this is not ‍​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍a case within the statute of frauds. It is not a mere collateral undertaking, ,or agreement, on the part ‍​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍of the defendant, to pay the debt of Bristol; but‘was an original contract, on an independent consideration, received by the defendant, ‍​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍by the procurement of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the same ground of action as if ‍​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍he had delivered his own goods to the defendant, as the consideration of the promise. (Cartling v. Aubert, 2 East’s Rep. 324.) The ‍​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‍plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to judgment.

Judgment for the plaintiff