Brown v. Rice
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Cole Circuit Court. This was an action originally commenced before a justice of the peace upon the following accountSamuel 0. Rice, to Richard J. Brown, Dr. To amount which the said Rice, in January, 1859, promised to pay upon the said Brown’s leaving the Barton farm, $23.” At the trial in the circuit court the defendant asked the court to instruct as follows: “3. Although Rice may have offered Brown a twenty-three dollar note to leave the Barton farm by a certain…
Read the full summary
Error to Cole Circuit Court. This was an action originally commenced before a justice of the peace upon the following accountSamuel 0. Rice, to Richard J. Brown, Dr. To amount which the said Rice, in January, 1859, promised to pay upon the said Brown’s leaving the Barton farm, $23.” At the trial in the circuit court the defendant asked the court to instruct as follows: “3. Although Rice may have offered Brown a twenty-three dollar note to leave the Barton farm by a certain day, if Brown failed at the time to accept the offer, Brown is not entitled to recover from Rice on this offer unless…
1Opinion of the CourtNaptoN, Judge
The third instruction asked by the defendant in this case, or something equivalent thereto, should, we think, have beeii] given to the jury. There was certainly evidence from which a jury might have come to the conclusion that Rice’s offer to give him his note for twenty-three dollars, if Brown would leave the Barton farm on a day named, was a mere promise, not a contract. To convert a promise into a contract, there must be the assent of the promisee, and until that is given the promiser may retract. The evidence was that Brown did not accede to the defendant’s proposition, but asked for time…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Turner v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1875
- Gann v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1896