Olive v. Lewis

Citations

• 45 Miss. 203

Syllabus

<p>1. Bill op exceptions showing certain testimony objected to and NOT CONTAINING THE WHOLE EVIDENCE INSUPPIOIENT TO PROCURE REVERSAL. — Certain testimony objected to and placed upon the record by a bill of exceptions, not being accompanied with the other testimonyin the cause, the assignment of error relating to its relevancy and competency will not be considered; for the evidence may have been rendered material and competent by the absent testimony.</p> <p>2. Statute op prauds—case in judgment—art. 1, p. 358, Rev. Code 1857. —M. was indebted to S., S. was indebted to O. In consideration of the promise of M., with the assent of S. and O., to pay his indebtedness to S. directly to O., the latter released S. from further liability to him: Held, the undertaking of M. was not a promise within the statute of frauds. Rev. Code, 1857, art. 1, p. 358.</p> <p>' 3. SAME —CONTINGENT LIABILITY — illustration op cases within and without the statute.—If the responsibility of A. is contingent upon the act of B., the case is within the statute; but if A., in consideration that C. will discharge B. of a debt owing to C. promises to pay that debt to C., the case is outside the statute; for the reason that A. has contracted an independent debt of his own, and his responsibility is not contingent upon the act of B.</p> <p>i. Same—receipt op consideration by the promisor not always the criterion—what is the test.—The receipt or non-receipt of the consideration by the party promising, does not determine, in every case, whether it is 'within the statute or not; but the inquiry still remains whether he entered into an independent obligation of his own, or whether his responsibility was contingent upon the act of another.</p>