Doane, Warburton & King v. Newman
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The instructions given for the plaintiff below were erroneous as they lay down the proposition, that an act of one party is a good consideration for the -promise of another, although the promise was not made with any reference to such act. This instruction does not require that defendants should have made their promise, in consideration that Newman would go security for O’Farrel. It is a past consideration.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The instructions given for the plaintiff below were erroneous as they lay down the proposition, that an act of one party is a good consideration for the -promise of another, although the promise was not made with any reference to such act. This instruction does not require that defendants should have made their promise, in consideration that Newman would go security for O’Farrel. It is a past consideration. Powell on Contracts,. 209 — 10—11. 2. The error in those instructions is not aided by the instructions subsequently given. 3. The fourth…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by Jonas Newman, against John Warburton, Hezekiah King, Wyllys King and Job P. Doane, composing the mercantile firm of Warburton & King. The first count in the declaration averred, that the defendants contracted with One William J. O’Farrel, master and owner of the steamboat Constellation, that if he would convey certain merchandize from St. Louis to New Orleans, safely and securely, and there deliver the same to them, they would pay him as freight therefore the sum of $545 95 at the city of St. Louis,— that said steamboat having been arrested at St.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sharpe v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Peterson v. FlemingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927