Case ID: me_4/html/0382-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mellen C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Trustees of Foxcroft Academy vs. Favor.
    No action lies to recover the amount of monies subscribed in aid of the establishment of an academy ; it not appearing that any monies had been expended by the trustees, or any other act done as a consideration, or upon the faith of the promise.
    This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the amount subscribed by the defendant, in aid of the funds of Foxcroft Academy. The subscription paper recited the incorporation, the terms and conditions on which it was granted, and the solicitude of the subscribers for the establishment of the academy ; and thereupon an engagement on the part of the subscribers, to pay to Samuel Chamberlain Esq. treasurer of the trustees, or his successor, the sums set against their respective names. The defendant subscribed “twenty five dollars, in labor or materials.”
    At the trial in the court below, before Perham J. a general objection was taken by the defendant against his liability on the subscription paper ; which the judge overruled, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiffs. Whereupon the defendant filed exceptions, pursuant to the statute. Several other objections occurred in the progress of the trial ; but the case was decided upon the point already stated.
    
      Mc Gaw, in support of the exceptions,
    relied on the cases of Bridgewater Academy v. Gilbert, 2 Pick. 579. Limerick Academy v. Davis 11 Mass. 113, and Farmington Academy v. Alien 14 Mass. 172.
    
    Godfrey, for the plain tills
   Mellen C. J.

delivered the opinion of the court.,

This case comes before us on exceptions alleged against the opinion of the court of Common Pleas. It is not necessary to examine the merits of all of them ; as we are well satisfied that the action cannot be maintained upon the promise stated in the subscription paper set forth in the declaration. We need not enter into an examination of principles to shew that there is no consideration for the promise which can give it legal obligation. The present case difie rs little from that of Limerick Academy v Davis. It is true there is a promisee named in the case at bar3 and there was none in the other case. But the case almost exactly resembling the present is that cited from 2 Pick. 579, in which there was a promisee, but the action was not maintained, It does not appear that any monies have been expended by the trustees, or that any part of the subscription was ever paid, or offered to be paid ; nor are there any of those facts which were considered as taking the ease of Farmington Academy v. Allen 14 Mass. 172, and the case of Flint, therein mentioned^ out of the influence of the general principle, so as to render the action maintainable on any of the common counts. The excep tious are sustained, and the verdict below is set aside; and a neve; trial is to be had in this court,

OASES XSf THE SUPREME JUDICIAL, COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON. JUNE TERM, 1826. Memorandum. Preble J. was not present at this term.