Bannantine v. Cantewll
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The consideration was sufficient and there was no rescission of the contract. Bean ro. Brookmire, 2 Dill. 108; Miller v. Goldsmith, 47 Wis. 573. There was no plea of want of consideration, or other matter constituting a defence. Edgell n. Sicker son, 20 Mo. 494; Fox v. Webster, 46 Mo. 131.; The State ex rel. v. Williams, 47 Mo. 463; Voss v. McGuire, 18 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The consideration was sufficient and there was no rescission of the contract. Bean ro. Brookmire, 2 Dill. 108; Miller v. Goldsmith, 47 Wis. 573. There was no plea of want of consideration, or other matter constituting a defence. Edgell n. Sicker son, 20 Mo. 494; Fox v. Webster, 46 Mo. 131.; The State ex rel. v. Williams, 47 Mo. 463; Voss v. McGuire, 18 Mo. App. 477. A composition which is not mutual and fair, but under which one creditor gets a secret advantage over anpther, is void. O’Shea ». Collier Co., 42 Mo. 397; Bank of…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, J.
There is no assignment of errors filed by the appellant in this case. The only complaint he seems to make in his brief is, that the court admitted illegal testimony for the defendant, and that the finding of the court, *659sitting as a jury, under the weight of evidence, should have been for him instead of for the defendant.
The petition states, in substance, that the L. W. Hemp Tinware Company, being indebted to the plaintiff, proposed to compromise the plaintiff’s claim at sixty cents on the dollar, provided the plaintiff would release it of further liability; that the defendant received from…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bank of Commerce v. HoeberSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Bank of Commerce v. HoeberMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882
- Luehrmann v. St. Louis Furniture Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- Snyder v. GerickeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903