Case Name: Jas. T. Moore and W. S. Miller v. Geo. A. Stovall
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1879-04
Citations: 70 Tenn. 543
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jas. T. Moore and W. S. Miller v. Geo. A. Stovall.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 543–559

Head Matter:
Jas. T. Moore and W. S. Miller v. Geo. A. Stovall.
Statute op Frauds. Promise. Case: J. bought a tract of land of M. and AL, for which, as part payment, he executed a note for $2,680. A lien was retained on the face of the deed for the payment of the purchase money. J. afterward sold the land to S., who paid a part of the consideration in cash, and the deed recited that “ in further consideration of this conveyance S. assumes the payment of the $2,680 note ” executed by J. to M. and M. Upon suit brought by M. and M. against S., Held, that plaintiffs could recover, and that the promise was not within the statute of fraud.
FROM SHELBY.
Appeal in error from the Circuit Court of Shelby county. C. Tf. Heiskell, J.
Humes & Poston and M. P. Jarnagin for Moore and . Miller.
H. Ceaft and J. M. Gregory for Stovall.
This case was heard in 1877. A rehearing being granted, it was again argued and determined at the last term of the court. The opinions of the judges upon the first hearing, as well as the opinions upon the rehearing, are published. — Reporter.

Opinion:
Turney, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The statute which provides that no action shall be brought whereby to charge a party upon a special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, unless such promise or agreement be in writing, etc., does not, in the opinion of a majority of the court, apply to the facts of this case, and can in no way effect it. The land was bought at a stipulated price, to be paid at stated times, one of the payments to be made to Moore & Miller. While it is true the vendor was indebted in that sum to Moore & Miller, and such indebtedness was the inducement moving him to have the defendant undertake to pay to Moore & Miller, still it was nevertheless an undertaking by the defendant to pay his own debt, and not the debt of the vendor of the land, and although the payment, when made, would have the effect to discharge the vendee's obligation to Moore & Miller, yet that indebtedness would be in no manner changed or altered before the payment. The defendant undertakes and promises alone for himself for a valuable consideration. He was satisfied with the price, and it can make no difference to him to whom he shall pay it, so he complies with the terms of his own contract. By his contract he created an indebtedness from himself to Moore & Miller, and should not be heard to gainsay it. We think the case of Campbell v. Findley, 3 Plum., 330, is unsustainable, and must be overruled.
He verse the judgment.