Case Name: William O. Watkins Treasurer, &c. vs. Philip Eames
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1852-09
Citations: 9 Cush. 537
Docket Number: 
Parties: William O. Watkins Treasurer, &c. vs. Philip Eames.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 537–540

Head Matter:
William O. Watkins Treasurer, &c. vs. Philip Eames.
E., with others, subscribed a paper, promising to pay a certain sum each to the treasurer of a society, for the purpose of erecting a new meeting-house; the society erected the same, on the faith of the funds subscribed; E. was one of the build ing committee, and participated in these acts of the society, as one of its members and officers ; and the meeting-house was completed and occupied by the society ; held, that the treasurer of the society could maintain an action against E. to recover his subscription.
It seems, also, that if a number of subscribers promise to contribute money on the faith of the common engagement, for the accomplishment of an object of interest to all, and which cannot be accomplished save by their common performance, the mutual promises constitute a reciprocal obligation in law.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the court of common pleas, by the plaintiff, as treasurer of the Congregational Society in the town of Washington, to recover the amount of the defendant’s subscription on a subscription paper, a copy of which is as follows :—
“ This certifies that we, the subscribers, believing that there ought to be a new meeting-house built by the Congregational Society in the town of Washington, therefore we, the subscribers, agree to pay the sum set to our respective names, to the treasurer or collector of said society, on demand, to be' appropriated for the building of said meeting-house.”
The writ contained the common counts, and also a special count, and the defendant filed a specification of defence.
It appeared that a legal meeting of the society was held September 28,1848, called by a warrant, signed by the defendant and others, the society’s committee, at which it was voted, “ to choose a committee of six, to circulate subscription papers, to raise money to build a meeting-house next season; ” that the subscription paper above mentioned was in the handwriting of the defendant, and that his name was the first signature to it; that another meeting of the society was held April 9,1849, the warrant being signed by the defendant and others as society committee, at which the defendant was chosen and acted as moderator; and it was voted, “ to build a new meeting-house, and have it finished by the first of November next, and not go beyond our means;” that, at this last meeting, the said subscription paper was exhibited, in its complete state, as it was at the time of bringing this action; that the defendant then stated that he had subscribed $100, that it was more than he was able to, but that, if he was not benefited in his day his children would be ; that at the same meeting, it was voted, “to choose a committee of three as a building committee ; ” that the meeting was adjourned to April 16, 1849, at which time it was voted “ to accept of the plan of the meetinghouse drawn by the committee;” that another adjournment was made to April 23, at which time it was voted, “that the contract be read,” that the contract was read, and that the building of the new meeting-house was then let out by the committee to William G. Balantine & Sons, for $1,348; that the defendant was not present at the meeting of April 16, but was present at the meeting of April 23, as well as the other preceding meetings, and that he voted affirmatively on all the above votes.
It also appeared, that the meeting-house was built in pursuance of the contract, and upon the strength of the subscription paper; that the society had no funds, other than those on the subscription paper, out of which to build the meetinghouse ; that at the time the society voted to build, the subscription paper was completed; that they obtained all the subscriptions they could before they voted to build, between $1,400 and $1,500; that the meeting-house was built, and was dedicated January 1, 1850; that the new meeting-house has always been occupied since by the society; and that, so far as it has been paid for, it has been by receipts from the subscription paper.
On the 25th of December, 1849, the defendant withdrew from the society, and has since ceased to be a member.
At a legal meeting of the society held September 12, 1850, it was voted to “ accept of the meeting-house.” William O. Watkins, the plaintiff, was the treasurer of the society at the time this suit was brought. It is also a fact in the case, found by the jury, the question having been specially submitted to them, that a demand was made on the defendant for the amount of his subscription before suit brought.
The defendant contended that parol evidence was inadmissible of an acceptance by the society of the subscription, at September 12, 1850, because it was after the building was erected; that there was no sufficient evidence that the subscription had been accepted; or that the plaintiff had paid money for the defendant at his request; or that the money subscribed was needed; or that the subscription paper was not sufficient without the defendant’s subscription ; and that, upon the foregoing facts and evidence, the action could not be maintained on any of the counts; and he requested the judge, Byington, J., so to instruct the jury. But the judge declined so to do, and instructed them that, on all the evidence in the case, if they believed it and it was true, it was competent for them to find that a legal promise had been made by the defendant, and upon sufficient consideration, and so to return a verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount claimed, $100, with interest from the time of the demand.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
J. Rockwell, for the defendant.
E. Merwin, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Cushing, J.
The report of this case appears to us to bring it directly within previous decisions, especially those of Thompson v. Page, 1 Met. 565, and Ives v. Sterling, 6 Met. 310, both which the present case very strikingly resembles; and, on the authority of those decisions, we should feel bound to say that here was a valid promise with lawful consideration.
Opinion has fluctuated, it is true, upon the question how far, in a common subscription by several persons, to an object of public utility, the promise of each one is a consideration for that of another. It has been objected that, to assume the respective promises as consideration one for the other, is to beg the whole question, and to reason in a circle. But if it clearly appear that a number of subscribers promise to contribute money, on the faith of the common engagement, for the accomplishment of an object of interest to all, and which iannot be accomplished save by their common performance, then it would seem that the mutual promises constitute reciprocal obligations.
In -addition to this, in the present case are other facts, going to make out legal consideration. The defendant appears to have acted a primary part in the business, and so to have induced both the other signers and the congregational society of which they were members, to undertake to construct the proposed meeting-house by voluntary subscription. He was a member of the committee of the congregational society, which called the society together to consider the subject; the subscription papers are in his own handwriting; he is at the head of the subscribers; if not present at the adjourned meeting of the society at which the plan of the meeting-house was accepted, yet he was at a subsequent meeting, when a contract based on that plan was adopted; he presided as moderator; he was one of the building committee; and the meeting-house was commenced and completed on the faith of the several subscriptions. All these are cogent arguments of consideration. Moreover, there was in the paper a lawful and sufficient promisee, the treasurer of the society, and consideration moving as between the defendant and the society.
Exceptions overruled.