Henry A. Hall, Plaintiff, v. William Smith
Syllabus
Henry A. Hall, Plaintiff, v. William Smith. Where there aré privies in a contract with the knowledge of a debtor to secure to his creditor the payment of a debt, the payment of it by any one of them other than the debtor, is a payment at his request, and is an express assumpsit to reim- ' burse the amount. . , . Where the surety of a" surety pays the debt of a principal, under a legal obligation, from. ¡which the principal was bound to relieve him, such a payment is a sufficient consideration to raise an implied assumpsit to repay the amount, although the piyment was made without a request from the principal. This case came up ón a certificate of division from the Circuit Cdurt of the United States for the District of Maryland. The .United States of America, District of Maryland, to wit:— . At a Circuit Court of the United- States for the Fourth Circuit, in mid for. the Maryland District, begun and held at. the city of Baltimore, on the first Monday in April, in the year of our Lord one thousand, eight hundred and forty-four. Presentj the' Honorable Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supféme; Court of'the. United States ; tha Honorable Upton S. Hearn,. Judge of Maryland- District; Z. Collins Lee, -Esquire} Attorney-; Thoñias B. .Pottenger, Esquire, Marshall; . Thomas Spicer, Clerk... Among .other, were the following proceedings, to wit: — Henry A. Hall v. William Smith. District of Maryland, Circuit Court of the United States,'April term, 1844. The declaration in. this case
Full Opinion (2,049 characters)
Mr. Justice WA’iQ.VE delivered the opinion of the court. Upon the trial of this cause in the Circuit Court, two points were made, upon which the judges differed in opinion ; ahd it has been certified to this court, as is provided for in the sixth section of the act of 1802, entitled £i An act to amend the judicial system of the United-States.” 2.Statutes at large, 159. From the evidence, we think, that all the persons in this transaction became privies in the same contract to secure the payment of a debt due by the defendant tó Thornton. The payment of it, therefore, by any one of them, other than the debtor, was a payment at his request, and an express assumpsit to reimburse the amount. But suppose such a privity not existing between the parties, the evidence shows it also to be a case of the surety of a surety paying the debt of a principal, under a legal obligation, from which the principal was bound to relieve him. Such a payment is a sufficient consideration to raise' an implied assumpsit, to repay the amount, though the payment was made without a request from the principal. Tappin v. Broster, 1 C. & P. 112; Exall v. Partridge, 8 Term ft. 310; Child v. Morley, ibid. 610. We shall decide the first point certified to be answered in the affirmative, which makes it unnecessary to notice the second. Order. This cause came on to be heard on. the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Maryland, and on'the points and questions on which the judges of the said Circuit Court were opposed in'Opinion, and which were certified to this' court for its opinion agreeably to the acts of Congress in such case made and provided, and was argued by counsel. In consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court that the plaintiff in this case is entitled, to recover of the defendant the money paid by the. plaintiff to Thornton, as being money paid for his (Smith’s) use; Whereupon it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that it be so certified to the said Circuit Court.
Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.