Young & Branson v. Ledford
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court. — Eon. Nat M. Shelton, Judge. (1) The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained on two grounds: First. Because the contract was put in writing and respondents could not recover on an oral contract. Hoffman v. Railroad, 68 S. W. 212. ' Second. Because it was not the debt of appellant and comes within the statute of frauds.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court. — Eon. Nat M. Shelton, Judge. (1) The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained on two grounds: First. Because the contract was put in writing and respondents could not recover on an oral contract. Hoffman v. Railroad, 68 S. W. 212. ' Second. Because it was not the debt of appellant and comes within the statute of frauds. R. S. 1899, see. 3118. (2) The respondents both admitted that they tried to collect the debt off of both H. W. and G. F. Ledford and there is ample evidence that they had H. W. Ledford charged therewith. Hence, if the case went to…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
W. M. Brevard entered into a contract with the United States for the transportation of the mail on route No. 4516, for the period of two years. Brevard sublet this contract to H. "W. Ledford and the latter, by a written contract, further sublet it to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs’ evidence tends to prove that between ten days and two weeks after they (the plaintiffs', had entered into said contract and had been carrying the mail under it, they became apprehensive that the quarterly payments of $125, provided in the contract, would not be paid when due, or at all, and this they made known to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Scharff v. KleinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Hobart v. MurrayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Neuvirth v. EnglerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
3Cited by4 opinions
- Schmidt v. RozierMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- George Gifford Co. v. John N. WillmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Becker v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- H. C. Lindsly & Son v. Kansas City Viaduct & Terminal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911