Case ID: yeates_3/html/0066-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Bickham and Jacob Reese against William Irwin.
    
      Indebitatus asstimpsit will not lie on a collateral promise guaranteeing the payment of goods delivered to a third person, though the goods have been charged by the vendor to such undertaker.
    Indebitatus assumpsit for goods sold and delivered; 1600 dollars. Pleas, non asstimpsit and payment, and non assumpsit infra sex annos.
    
    The defendant’s counsel admitted the several articles charged in the plaintiffs’ account, except 350!. ns. 5£d., said to have been delivered to James Lemon on the 25 th April 1792, at the defendant’s request.
    It appeared that these articles were bespoke by the said James Lemon, and sorted out for him; but that the plaintiffs refused to deliver them to him, unless some person would guarantee the payment of the amount. The defendant being present agreed *67] *to guaranty, and the goods were delivered to Lemon, ' J and charged to the defendant in the plaintiff’s blotter.
    Mr. Collins, pro quer. Mr. Ross, pro def.
    
   The court were clearly of opinion, that though the goods had been charged by the plaintiffs to the defendant, yet it was manifest, from all the circumstances of the case, and from what passed at the time of the delivery, 'that the defendant’s responsibility rested on his collateral undertaking as security for the goods, and not as principal in the contract; consequently the plaintiffs could not recover on a general indebitatus assumpsit, but should have declared in assumpsit, for the special undertaking.

It was at length agreed, that a juror should be withdrawn, and the plaintiffs be permitted to amend their declaration, on their consenting that the judgment entered in the Common Pleas as a security should be vacated.