Case ID: root_1/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Holbrook v. Judd.
    A declaration that is substantially good is not vitiated by matters of surplusage.
    Action of the case; declaring, that on the 5th of March, A. D. 1190, he took out two writs of attachment against the defendant, one on a note for £60, and one on book for £100, both returnable to the County Court on the fourth Tuesday of said March; which were served by attaching the defendant’s body; that the said Judd then having in Iris hands a note upon tli,e plaintiff in favor of Joseph Hallet, for £118 11s. York money, as attorney to said Hallet, applied to the plaintiff .and informed him that unless he would take up said attachments against him and not have them returned to court, he would immediately attach, him upon said Hallet’s note; hut if the plaintiff would take them up and not return them to court, said Hallet’s note should not be prosecuted or put in •suit until the next winter after; to which proposal the plaintiff .agreed and took up said attachments, and caused them not to be returned to court; in consideration whereof the defendant promised and agreed that said Hallet’s note should not be put in suit until the next winter after: Yet the plaintiff says that the defendant not regarding his agreement, prayed out a writ of attachment on said Hallet’s note, dated the 1st day of July, A. D. 1790, and caused his lands to be attached in the state of Hew Hampshire, and in Hovember A. D. 1790; recovered judgment against the plaintiff for £176 York money, for which he took execution, and had it satisfied by the plaintiff’s lands; and the defendant also purchased a note of Ephraim "Wheeler, against the plaintiff, for £30 14s., on which note he caused the plaintiff’s body to be attached, in said; Hew Hampshire on said 1st of July, and to be imprisoned, until he turned out all his movable estate to pay the defendant’s said debt at his own price. Plaintiff’s damage the sum of £200. The defendant demurred to this declaration.
    The exceptions taken were — 1st. Uncertainty whether the promise was, never to sue said Hallet’s note, or not to sue until next winter. 2d. A. promise never to sue would be unreasonable. 3d. The consideration idle and insignificant, being only to stop said attachments which might be renewed the next moment. 4th. That the declaration contained a charge for attaching him upon the Wheeler note, which was not within the agreement.
   Judgment —■ That the declaration is sufficient, it contains ■substantially a good consideration; that is, forbearance and stopping said suits by attachment: a clear and certain promise, viz. that said HaLlet’s note should uot be put in suit until the then next winter; and a breach by putting it in suit on the 1st of July after; all the rest being surplusage might better haye been omitted, and may well be rejected.