Case ID: johns_8/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ten Eyck and others against Vanderpoel.
    Where A. as administrator of .B., deceased, ryVnot(Tto™.Sby mhseci topayc" Cl dollars and 72 cents, for value received by B. and his heirs, on demand, -with, interest until paid,” the nofe was held to be void for want of a consideration,
    THIS was an action <y§-hs&itnpsit. The declaration . , . '.tiaÉsfíi'V ,1 , r , was on a promissory note, flMRby the defendant, on t^le 18t^ May, 1809, by whichflffe defendant, “ as admin^strator °f Peter Bregau, deceased, promised to pay the plaintiffs 61 dollars and 72 cents, for value received, by John Bregan and heirs, on demand, with lawful interest until paid.” There was a demurrer to thé declaration and joinder in demurrer, which was submitted to the court, without argument.
   Per Curiam.

The declaration does not state a consideration for the promise. The defendant, as administrator, promises to pay a debt in the right of others. The note states, that the value received was by third persons, and there is no consideration or inducement for the promise. The writing r> pels any presumption of consideration from the words “ value receivedbecause it admits that the value was received by “ John Bregan, and his heirs,” and the defendant signs as administrator. The case of Rann v. Hughes (7 Term Rep. 350. note. 7 Bro. C. C. 550.) is in point. Judgment must be for the defendant.