Case ID: johns_13/html/0496-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      -P$r Gufiam,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shear against Mallory and Bryant, Overseers of the Poor of the town of Hillsdale.
    Although, sopie cases, an ’ISpwiffon* lonslderatjon6 jromh*f “hlud paítyl’u^whosE Si7ewasemade, iter The’eonsL from «fe p°ainpfáe^Lmádg jo frim, or for aetionPPPcannot
    ^e?fer^|rs df g&óTwS» *" |hJrpwation.DS
    fH BKBOR,.On eer/i.órarí-to a iustice’s-court, ‘
    , ' Tfié’ defendant^ in error; who were plaintiffs in the court below, brought an- action against the plaintiff in error,.on-.a.prbmisff alleged to have been made -by’him, for; the maintenance of% bastard child, born of the body of his daughter. It appeared, op the trial, that the defendant below -had taken- 'out a warrant against the putative father of the bastard child, and that, when he was arrested, the defendant settled with him,, and- took his note,’ and no further proceedings appear to have been had 4 • • t i i i . , agains^ tpeputative1 father* . It also appeared^ that the defend-at-sevefal times, acknowledged that' he hád-to- máint-am Í&P child, and that he hád promised one Hogcboom, who- had married the mother of the child, that if he-would give up (lie property which the defendant had-given the mother, he, the de-' fendant, would maintain the child;-and that Ifogeboom did give Up1 the property,' The1.: overseers had expended more than pwenty-fiye dollars jn the support of the-child. Judgment was l^yea-in JfMow. fer iba -defe^dafits’ i® ■
   -P$r Gufiam,

The promise made by the defendant below, to maintain tfie b&stgrd child, cannot be made tQ emn to the benefit of the plaintiffs below. In general, it is necessary that the Con¡«¡¡deration on which a promise is founded, should move from the party in whose favour the promise is made. There are some cases, however, where a parfy in whose favour the promise is made, may maintain an action, although the consideration moves from another person ; but, in the present case, the consideration did not move from the plaintiffs below, nor was the promise made to them, or for their benefit. It does not appear that they were the overseers of the poor at the time the putative father was proceeded against, and, admitting that the promise to maintain this child enured to the benefit of the then overseers, they are not a body corporate so that their- successors can sue ifi their own name upon such promise. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

Judgment reversed,