2 Mass. 283 | Mass. | 1807
As to the two instalments which had fallen due at the commencement of the action, the plaintiff is undoubtedly entitled to recover, if the promise is well laid. I think what follows the recital of the promise in the declaration may be rejected as surplusage, and that we can give judgment for the plaintiff according to the right of the case.
Sewall, J., concurred.
Here is shown substantially, and even technically, a good cause of action, it is true,' the plaintiff goes on to allege other facts, and to draw from them a legal [ * 284 ] * inference. But the allegation and inference • are alike impertinent. The general demurrer (and this is no/hing more) agrees all facts which are well and sufficiently
Without question the plaintiff had a right of action, on the first instalment falling due. I have known an
Thatcher, J., not present.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Greenleaf vs. Kellogg, in Essex.
Eastabrook vs. Moulton, 9 Mass. Rep. 25.