Wilson v. Bevans

Citations

• 58 Ill. 232

Syllabus

<p>1. New trial—whether verdict supported by the evidence. It is not the duty of the appellate court to enter upon a critical analysis of the evidence in every case, to determine with accuracy, as on an original hearing, the questions of fact submitted to a jury. Where it is apparent, the jury have misapprehended the force of the evidence, or where the verdict is manifestly wrong, it is the duty of the appellate court to re-examine the evidence. To that extent this court will look into the evidence, but no further.</p> <p>2. But where there is testimony of equal credibility on both sides, on simple questions of fact, the appellate court must rely on the verdict as presenting the true conclusion to be drawn therefrom.</p> <p>3. Statute of frauds—promise to answer for the debt of another. The general rule is, if a promise is in the nature of an original undertaking to pay the debt of another, and is founded on a valuable consideration received by the promisor himself, it is not within the statute, and need not be in writing to make it valid and binding,—it will be regarded in the light of a contract for the benefit of a third party, upon which such third party may found an action for the breach.</p> <p>4- So, where a purchaser of property agreed by parol, in consideration thereof, to pay certain debts of his vendor due to a third person, it was held, the promise was in nowise collateral to or dependent on the liability of the vendor, but was an original and independent promise, and not within the statute of frauds.</p>