Matson and Another against Wharam
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1787 |
| Date | 13 November 1787 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 44
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
1 H. Bl. 120. 3 Esp. Cas. 86. 4 Taunt. 117.
[80] matson and another against whaeam. Tuesday, Nov. 13th, 1787. Though a tradesman be induced to send goods upon credit to another by a promise made in these words, " If you do not know him you know me, atid I will see you paid ;" yet this is void by the Statute of Frauds, not being in writing. There is no distinction between a promise to pay for goods furnished for the use of another made before they are delivered and after. [1 H. Bl. 120. 3 Esp. Cas. 86. 4 Taunt. 117.] This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and tried before Wilson, J. at the last assizes at Kingston upon Hull, when a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case : In January 1785, the defendant Wharam applied to Matson, one of the plaintiffs, and asked him if he was willing to serve one Robert Coulthard of Pontefract with groceries; he answered they dealt with no body in that part of the country, and did not know Coulthard ; to which the defendant, Wharam, replied, If you do not know him you know me, and I will see you paid. Matson then said he would serve him; and Wharam answered, He is, a good chap, but I will see you paid. A letter was afterwards received by the plaintiffs from Coulthard, containing an order for goods to the amount of 71. and the goods were afterwards sent to Coulthard accordingly. The plaintiffs made Coulthard the debtor for these goods in their books. They afterwards applied to Coulthard for payment of the debt by letter, and receiving no answer, they then applied to the defendant, Wharam, who refused to pay the money. There was no promise in writing made by the defendant. The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover? Garrow, for the plaintiffs, attempted to take a distinction which had been before taken in Jones v. Cotvper (a)1, and Mawbrey v. Cunningham, there cited, between a promise for the payment of goods for another person before delivery and after ; and contended, that in the former case it amounted to an original undertaking, and so was not within the Statute of Frauds. And he also cited Reed v. Nash, 1 Wils. 305. Fish v. Hufchinson, 1 Wils. 94, and Peckham v. De Faria, M. 22 Geo. 3, B. E. But The Court were clearly of opinion that that distinction had been over-ruled ; and Buller, J. added...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v Marshall
...Oƒ€™Callaghan 2 Ir. Jur. 314. Pinchon v. ChilcottENR 3 C. & P. 236. Knowles v. MichelENR 13 East, 249. Matson v. WharamENR 2 T. R. 80. Jones v. Cooper Cowper, 227. Peckham v. FariaENR 3 Doug. 13. Highmore v. Primrose 1 M. & Selw. 64. Porter v. CooperENR 1 Cr. M. & R. 387. Pr......
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...goods are furnished is liable at all, any promise by a third person, upon sufficient consideration, to pay that debt, must be in writing. 2 T. R. 80, Matson v. Wkaram. 1 H. Black. 120, Anderson v. Hayman. 1 Salk. 27, Birkmyr v. Darnell. 2 Ld. Raym. 1085, S. C.(g) It is very often the subjec......
-
Green against Cresswell
...by Hadley before or after the promise of the defendant; Jones v. Cooper (1 Cowp. 227), Anderson v. Hotyman (1 H, Bl. 120), Matson v. Whamm (2 T. R. 80). The cases are collected in [456] note (2) to Forth v. Stanton (1 Wms. Saund. 211 a.), beginning with Read v. Nash (1 Wils. 305); and there......
-
Barrell v Trussell
... ... be, that wherever a Defendant meant to avail himself, as a defence against an action brought upon a bill of exchange, of the circumstance that the ... a good consideration for a promise in writing to pay the debt of another, as well as for any other promise.A count averring that J. A. made a bill ... ...