Ten Eyck v. Vanderpoel — 8 Johns. 120

Majority

p. 120

Ten Eyck and others against Vanderpoel.

Headnote

Where A. as administrator of .B., deceased, ryVnot(Tto™.Sby mhseci topayc" Cl dollars and 72 cents, for value received by B. and his heirs, on demand, -with, interest until paid,” the nofe was held to be void for want of a consideration,

THIS was an action <y§-hs&itnpsit. The declaration . , . '.tiaÉsfíi'V ,1 , r , was on a promissory note, flMRby the defendant, on t^le 18t^ May, 1809, by whichflffe defendant, “ as admin^strator °f Peter Bregau, deceased, promised to pay the

p. 121

plaintiffs 61 dollars and 72 cents, for value received, by John Bregan and heirs, on demand, with lawful interest until paid.” There was a demurrer to thé declaration and joinder in demurrer, which was submitted to the court, without argument.

The declaration does not state a consideration for the promise. The defendant, as administrator, promises to pay a debt in the right of others. The note states, that the value received was by third persons, and there is no consideration or inducement for the promise. The writing r> pels any presumption of consideration from the words “ value receivedbecause it admits that the value was received by “ John Bregan, and his heirs,” and the defendant signs as administrator. The case of Rann v. Hughes (7 Term Rep. 350. note. 7 Bro. C. C. 550.) is in point. Judgment must be for the defendant.