Case Name: Hitchcock et al. v. Page
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1791-08
Citations: 1 Root 293
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hitchcock et al. v. Page.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
Hitchcock et al. v. Page.
The want of a consideration in a declaration upon a parol promise is not aided by a verdict.
Eubob to reverse a judgment of a justice in an action by Page against Hitchcock and Merriman, declaring that the defendants promised to stop a certain suit which they had or was -about to commence against him on a note given by him to said Merriman; or that they would pay all the cost he should be put to thereby. That the defendants not regarding their promise, did prosecute said suit against him, whereby he was put to cost, which the defendants have never paid, damage £ . Plea — Nonassumpsit. Judgment, that the defendants 'are guilty or did assume and promise and that the plaintiff recover, etc.
Errors assigned • — ■ 1st. That the judgment doth not answer the issue. 2d. That the declaration is insufficient.

Opinion:
Judgment — Manifest error. As to the first exception in error, the judgment does answer the issue and more which is surplusage. As to the second exception, the declaration is clearly bad, for want of consideration and for want of certainty — and the want of a consideration in an action upon a parol promise, is not aided by the finding of the justice, or by verdict of a jury; for as it is not alleged, it need not be proved on the trial.