Robertson v. Hunter

Citations

• 29 S.C. 9
• 6 S.E. 850
• 1888 S.C. LEXIS 92

Syllabus

<p>1. H being indebted to M individually, and also to a partnership of which M was a member, received from M a paper acknowledging the receipt of oertain securities “in full discharge and settlement of all obligations of a pecuniary character.” Held, that the terms of this paper did not include H’s indebtedness to the partnership.</p> <p>2. If M had been bound for the payment of H’s debt to the partnership, there would have been no legal obligation of II to M individually therefor, until M had made the payment.</p> <p>3. But M’s verbal promise to see that H’s debt to the partnership was paid was void under the statute of frauds, and therefore imposed no legal liability on M.</p> <p>4. Whore the testimony is not disputed, the Circuit Judge may properly instruct the jury as to the character of a promise to pay the debt of another — whether the undertaking is original or only collateral.</p> <p>5. Where credit was refused to H unless M would promise to see the debt paid, and M so promised, but by agreement the account was charged to II, M’s promise to pay is within the statute of frauds and not binding.</p> <p>6. Whenever the main purpose and object of the promisor is not to answer for another, but to subserve some purpose of his own, his promise is not within the statute, although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of another. The test is whether there is a new consideration moving to the promisor; if not, the promise is not binding.</p>