Case ID: scl_9/html/0227-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Gantt.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas M‘Daniel against John Scoggins.
    In an action by PS íyff¡>Tad*pec¡5¡ set it forth in his process, or evidence of it cannot
    This was a process brought by the . * ° « against the defendant, on the promise of the latter to pay the debt of another, to which the statute of frauds was pleaded. The presiding _ - •, . -¶ . n ,i Judge permitted evidence to be given oi another « r o promise, made by the defendant to pay this independently of that set forth in the body of the process, and gave a decree for the plaintiff
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gantt.

As the law requires that the plaintiff, in a proceeding of this kind, shall distinctly state the circumstances of his case, and as no mention was made therein of this second promise, I am clearly of opinion that no evidence of such promise ought to have been permitted to go to the Jury.

A new trial should be had in the case.

GrimM, Bay, Johnson, and Cheves, J. concurred.