Carlisle v. General Tire Service Co.

Counsel for the defendant contends that the evidence clearly refutes the allegations of the petition relative to the oral contract which is the basis of this suit; second, that if any agreement of this character was entered into, the evidence shows conclusively that it was a voluntary promise of the defendant made after the execution of the bill of sale and was a mere nudum pactum, and, third, in any event if such an agreement was entered into, it was without consideration.

As to the first contention, the testimony of the plaintiff’s manager, Mr. Jentzen, is supported by that of the attorney,…