, 1872-12-15
Lawyers Disagree as to the Manner Of
Binding Man To Pay
Anothcr's Debts.
Ihe Legal Nature of a Debt
Itself a Matter Of
Doubt.
Must There Be Two Parties and a
Consideration to Constitute
q Contract
Further Justification for Unpaid
Policy-Holders.


Policy-Ho1ders.
Argument on the demurrer as to the liability
OF parties to guarantees securing the payment OF
the debts" Of the National Insurance Com
pany, and the sfdebts and iabilities's of the
otock and Mutual Insurance Company, out
standing On the 8th of January, 1870, was re-
suned, yesterday afternoon, in the Superior
court, common law side before Judge Porter,
counsel for the plaintiff being heard in reply
20 the demurrer. A1r. Goudy ard Mr. Shufeldt
represent the plaintiff, and Mr. Evans the de-
7enoants. The case argued was Rozet " Barker
ct al
Inc argument Of Mr. Evans, last week, was it
~M be remembered, to tho effect that
zsae guarantees were Of no legal value,
Gst oecause they must, if good at al, apply to
oeots existing g.pregious to the date thereof, and
oos, as IN this case, to debts accruiug after
eA]os; second; because there we're no contract-
ue partles, and the papers were consequently
.1ueo.n pdctuza; third, because there was no
consideration; and, fourth, because Judgment
.1es' % obtained on the particular claim set
1orth In the decla1ation before anv cause
" acuon can exist on the guaranty. As
tne question raised involves most
important subject, namely, what
eonsntutes contract valid in Law, question
touching every interest in e mercantile county,
LIE lR1nUsE reported the arguments in full on
1ne SIDE Of the demurrer, and now reports the
other eide.
f'fst, the counsel replied, this (the guaranty
Is not 'auduna pactuna, when the consideration
Is benefit to him who makes the promise, or
when 1t is an injury to him who receives il. It |
l.en' - n 70 susta1n IN assuhpsl1 In eltner
case. q Parsons on Contracts, p. 431.) In this |
instance, the consideration was 8 benefit to the |
o9e31esq1dants, 93 for they took and appropriated !
n7; AZ ne property and assets Of the corporation
waa we're s iegny nd foT the dab
Rvsd lin ef q aeleetas T. debs
Ine corporation a be understood it. delivered
3oa tlpt 20 me ae1endants upon the eondi-
s "n1cn, ~ this agreement, the defendants under
Eook to 90: The property was handed over in
II Itu6s, ano the promise was not promise to pay
me me de95 Of another, but an original undertake
=. Smith, sandford 1856 "a prom
!se to pay money the defendant
bad b. received for the use Of the plaintiff was
olndlng); Berby =. Taylor, Hill 577, (where
haya scoa tor the Of The
ne same case, to the same effect: The objec-
lion that this guaranty Was Toid for want Of
nutoahty was not good for the statute only re-
CURED that 1t be Signed BY the party to be
charged" The writing was but the evidence of
an agreement, or promise to pay. The Chief
Justice said: ''The defendant N ight have requir-
ed the plaintiffs signature, but the object Of
The statute vas to secure the defendant, and I
saying that the signature of both parties is that
which makes the agreement:"' That q promise
20 pay q deot n consideration Of goods or Sc
;uT1tles sold or delivered to the promisor By the
1ehtor would h be & valid, even eve WITHOUT the aid Of
%1atng, ,"as too t1rnlw established to be shaken.
otanley ?: dedrleh, y 1ndeu, IS; Eddy ?. Rob- ,
srls, - unno1s, 2oo; baIkerv. Buehlln, DEMO; .
Jrangna5 =. bantlng. > Den1o, ~ The contract
rs "a g good a1 common Law, and would be valid
!uflcient consideration: Eastwood =.
Kenyon, II 4. and E., 446; Fitzgerald
!: !. Dresser, z .. 3: n. s. sA, 385; Preble =.
3aia"an, 81 H., Cash, 5s2; Pie =. Brown, Cash;
E to Ps9 ABB bGfS e cglie1a3oo Ss Aa oral
5ooas & q assess @ TeoeiSed IRON the debtor would
~ b1ndng, aud be enforced by the creditor, as .
sh;nia., = no1 41a as Gonact. hilton Dlnsmo1e,
III Sup1es: ~ 4Ghenze I Jackson, Ala., '
~ an1 'a2aey g7a R:rar Mebstf1 Conn., 256, also
Ionn:, ;aa;t, zs barker @ = Buehlm Denio, la
lecls1Ve case ;-Aso Mal1oly =. elliott, 2l N. T.,
T. ~, and 433. He read a mass
+ authorities in support Of the view
hat q promise in writing in such II
t WEE generally held in this country that when q
,e pr0ni6e had been reduced to writing with ! Il
ufhcie..t clearneEs to exclude the danger OF Il
aud and render it certajn that the f7neran4or a.
eant 30 make himself answerable, the end OF
le statute vas attained. and the actual con-
derati2n might be ehoWn by oral testimony.
'ackard ?, Richardson, II Miss, 122; Elliot '.
7tton, ~ 1e1as 208; Sage =. Wilcox, 6 Conn.,, st
Z; Smith r. lde, 3 Yer, 290; Ratchen | N
Smith, II ter., 292; Troy Academy '. Nell N
n. "a Id., lS9 Gregory =. Glend. 33 ID. 402 | n
,ed " Evans II Ohm 1o3 Al tn tha nnaa | ah
~ .trs this a deht - ha thnnoh+ - ~. 49, Ia Ia
4aGa .a1-,a1a. - o1 - lug oe1euoant5
na7,14 bad or+atse5; 1;; Il! = ~ " pany'
~ MN which losses To;r1s1 occ1r ~ an +;naa
] for The payment of which its canitei etocI al
pledS-ea- Ine company intended to retire -
m ht1G. ~ III n 31aun 1orfo |