{ "id": 4724778, "name": "CALEDONIAN COAL CO. v. YOUNG", "name_abbreviation": "Caledonian Coal Co. v. Young", "decision_date": "1917-05-24", "docket_number": "No. 1968", "first_page": "675", "last_page": "677", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "22 N.M. 675" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "19 S'. D. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.D.", "case_ids": [ 8589325 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/sd/19/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Am. Dec. 175", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 577", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Wash, 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash,", "case_ids": [ 561130 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash/66/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Wall. 1", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 3426713 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/85/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 S'. D. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.D.", "case_ids": [ 8589325 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sd/19/0293-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 262, "char_count": 3428, "ocr_confidence": 0.449, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15308904109853508 }, "sha256": "f9337f75e1eabc24f086dc5a36c7365bded6ff683e963f2f3abb324c6fb24a53", "simhash": "1:251be3b52d30a227", "word_count": 605 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:04.379365+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hanna, C. J., and Parker, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "CALEDONIAN COAL CO. v. YOUNG." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT.\nEOBEETS, J.\nThis action was instituted by appellant against appellee in the court below to recover on a promissory note for $650, alleged to have been executed January 15, 1910, and payable nine months after date, to the order of appellant, with interest. The complaint, further alleged that on the 30th day of July, 1913, appellee was adjudged a bankrupt, and that thereafter he received h'is discharge. It Ayas further alleged that after adjudication and discharge of the appellee he promised appellant that he Avould pay all that was clue upon said note, with which promise he failed to comply. The answer set up the adjudication in bankruptcy and denied the promise to pay. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and findings of fact were made and conclusions of law stated. The court found, at the request of the appellant:\n\u201cThat on March 27, 1914, J. H. Young orally promised James Sneddon, agent for the Caledonian Coal Company, that he would pay the Caledonian Coal Company account and all his other' creditors if he was able.\u201d\nThe\u2019following conclusion of law was made by the court:\n\u201cThat the conversation does not amount to a promise, either conditional or otherwise, and is not binding upon the defendant in this case.\u201d\nJudgment was entered for the appellee.\nThe authorities uniformly agree that the promise by which a discharged debt is revived must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal. That the promise may be either absolute or conditional, but in either case it must be unequivocal, and the occurrence of the condition must be averred if the promise be conditional. Allen v. Ferguson, 18 Wall. 1, 21 L. Ed. 854. Other cases will be found in a note to Cole v. Rosene, 66 Wash, 73, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 577; Sundling v. Willey 19 S. D. 293, 9 Ann. Cas. 644; Remington on Bankrupt (2d Ed.) \u00a7 2720. We agree with the conclusion of law made by the lower court that the language employed did not amount to a certain clear and unequivocal promise to pay the debt.\nTherefore the judgment will be affirmed; and it is so ordered.\nHanna, C. J., and Parker, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EOBEETS, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "IT. B. Jamison of Albuquerque for appellant.", "Buiz & Overson of Gallup, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "[No. 1968.\nMay 24, 1917.]\nCALEDONIAN COAL CO. v. YOUNG.\nSYLLABUS BY THE COURT.\n1. In order' to .revive a debt discharged in bankruptcy, a promise to pay the same must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal. \u25a0 P. 677\n2. A statement of a discharged bankrupt, made to one of his creditors that he would pay such creditor\u2019s account and all his other creditors, if he was able, does not amount to a promise, either conditional or otherwise, and does not revive the debt. ' P. 677\nAppeal from District Court, McKinley County; TI. F. Baynolds, Juclge.\nAction b}1- the Caledonian Coal Company against J. IT. Young. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.\nAffirmed.\nIT. B. Jamison of Albuquerque for appellant.\nThe promise to pay when the debtor was able is too indefinite and uncertain to constitute a. condition.\nSundling v. Willey, 9 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 646; ITorner v. Starkie, Admx., 27 111. 13; Lime v Miller, 15 N IT. 522; Cummings v. Gassett, 19 Yfc. 308; Norton v. Shepard, 40 Am. B. 158; Blanc v. Blank, 43 Am. Dec. 175.\nBuiz & Overson of Gallup, for appellee.\nIn order to revive a debt discharged in bankruptcy the promise to pay must be absolute and unconditional, or'if conditional the party must plead and prove the happening of the contingency.\nSundling v. Willey, 19 S'. D. 293, and 9 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 644 and note." }, "file_name": "0675-01", "first_page_order": 693, "last_page_order": 695 }