Ferrell v. Scott

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 344

Syllabus

<p>1. Where the surviving widow of a pauper gave a promissory note, shortly after her husband’s death, to one of his creditors, for a demand which had been contracted in his life time, in consideration that such demand should be discharged against the estate of the husband, by virtue of her undertaking to pay it, it was held not to he such an obligation as she could be compelled to pay.</p> <p>2. An undertaking to pay the debt of another, on condition that that other shall be entirely discharged from liability, is founded on a sufficient consideration, upon the ground that the promissor in such case has become an original debtor, on the discharge of the former debt, which is supposed to deprive the promissee of some previous advantage, or to subject him to some prejudice and delay in realizing it.</p> <p>3. But the defendant’s undertaking being voluntary, and without benefit, so far as she was concerned, and one which subjected the plaintiff to no possible loss or detriment, and being thus without consideration, was nudum pactum and void.</p> <p>4. The abstract position, that a moral obligation is a sufficient consideration to support an express promise to pay money, has been, in general, controlled by a state of facts that would resolve it into a question more resembling one of legal justice, than moral obligation, founded in conscience and piety. Vide McMorris vs. Herndon. (1)</p> <p>5. Corbet vs. Cochrane, Riley’s Law Cases, 44, distinguished from this case.</p>