McJilton v. Smizer
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error ¿o St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action to recover the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars, which had been paid by the plaintiff, to take up a bill of exchange, alleged to have been accepted by him for the accommodation of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Error ¿o St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action to recover the sum of one hundred and thirty dollars, which had been paid by the plaintiff, to take up a bill of exchange, alleged to have been accepted by him for the accommodation of the defendant. The answer of the defendant stated that the bill was drawn under a contract between the parties, by which the defendant agreed to cut and place on the banks of the Maramec, a certain quantity of wood for the plaintiff; that this bill was an advance under that contract, and that defendant did cut and place on the banks of the Mar-amec…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
1. It is a little remarkable that the law of contracts, for the payment and delivery of specific articles, should be a matter of discussion at this day. There is a contrariety of opinion in the books and in the opinions of courts in relation to the effect of a tender, or a readiness, at the time and place appointed, to deliver property in pursuance to a contract. One difficulty is in relation to the effect of a tender. Whether a tender should be pleaded with a readiness still to perform, or will a tender vest the property tendered in the creditor and discharge the debtor or obligor from all…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mitchell v. GregoryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1809
3Cited by1 opinion
- Boynton v. EmersonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1796