Case Name: Tuttle v. Bigelow
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1788-09
Citations: 1 Root 108
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tuttle v. Bigelow.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
HARTFORD COUNTY,
SEPTEMBER TERM, A. D. 1788.
Tuttle v. Bigelow.
Forbearance a good consideration of a promise to Lind the promisor in a note to pay the money to the assignee, notwithstanding a discharge from the promisee who is bankrupt.
Writ or Error, to reverse a judgment of tbe County Court, in an action of assumpsit, declaring, tbat for a valuable consideration, one S. Clow assigned to him a note against said Bigelow for a quantity of rum, to be delivered at New; Haven some time in February; that when said note became due be •applied to tbe defendant for tbe pay, and informed him of said assignment; and tbe defendant, not then having tbe rum, requested tbe plaintiff to wait on him until June then next, to receive tbe ruin at Hartford, to which proposal and request of the defendant tbe plaintiff consented and agreed; and tbe defendant then and there in consideration thereof assumed and promised to pay and deliver said rum,- due on said note to tbe plaintiff, at Hartford aforesaid, on tbe day of June aforesaid; which promise tbe defendant bath never performed, but to defraud tbe plaintiff bath since bis said promise,' obtained from said Crow a discharge of said note, who then was and now is a bankrupt and well known to be such by tbe defendant •— damage, etc.
Plea, nonassumpsit; and verdict for tbe plaintiff. And tbe defendant moved in arrest; tbe insufficiency of the declaration —■ and judgment was arrested by the County Court.
Error assigned — That the County Court ought not to have arrested said judgment; for that said declaration was sufficient.

Opinion:
And the judgment of the Superior Court is — That there is manifest error in the judgment complained of, for the agreement to give forbearance to June, and to accept the rum at Hartford, on the request of the defendant, is a good consideration of the promise.