Brown v. Strait, 19 Ill. 88 (1857)

Nov. 1857 · Illinois Supreme Court

19 Ill. 88

William Brown, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cyrus Strait et al., Defendants in Error.

ERROR TO WAYNE.

Where one person enters into a simple contract with another for the benefit of a third person, the third person may maintain an action for a breach of such contract; such a contract is not within the statute of frauds.

Brown sued Strait & Crews before a justice of the peace, in Wayne county, and recovered a judgment against them. They took an appeal to the Circuit Court; the case was there submitted to Baugh, Judge, without the intervention of a jury, who found for Strait & Crews, and rendered a judgment against Brown for costs. Brown thereupon brought the case to this court by writ of error. The bill of exceptions shows, that one Collins was indebted to Brown in the sum of forty dollars. Collins owned a mill, which he sold to Strait & Crews, for which they paid him a part in hand, and promised to pay his debt to Brown. Brown was not present at the contract between Collins and Strait & Crews, but they had stated their agreement to pay Brown.

E. Beecher, for Plaintiff' in Error.

R. S. Nelson, for Defendants in Error.

Skinner, J.

One Collins owed the plaintiff below, forty dollars. Collins sold the defendants a mill, for which they paid him some money, and verbally promised to pay his debt to the plaintiff, but which, on demand of plaintiff, they refused to do. The court, on this state of fact, rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. The case of Eddy v. Roberts, 17 Ill. R. 505, decides the question here. In that case, the court say: “ Where one enters into a simple contract for the benefit of a third, such third person may maintain an action for breach, and such contract is not within the statute of frauds.”

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.