Leak v. Elliott
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Ralls circuit court. We maintain 1st. The court erred in giving the first instruction asked by the deft. We hold the law to be, that a conditional promise or acknowledgment, may take the case ought of the operation of the statute, if the condition be performed or complied with. — See 11 Wheaton 309; 2 vol. C. R. U.S. p. 461. 2nd.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Ralls circuit court. We maintain 1st. The court erred in giving the first instruction asked by the deft. We hold the law to be, that a conditional promise or acknowledgment, may take the case ought of the operation of the statute, if the condition be performed or complied with. — See 11 Wheaton 309; 2 vol. C. R. U.S. p. 461. 2nd. We maintain that the 2nd instruction ought not to have been given, because the doctrine laid down in it,, applies only to the admissibility of the testimony. The testimony was received and not objected to by the defendant, and its effect' afterwards,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion delivered by
Wash Judge.
This was an action of assumpsit, instituted by Leak v. Elliott, in the Ralls circuit court, to recover back a sum of money paid by the appellant to appellee on a parol contract, entered into between the parties, then resident in the State of Kentucky, for the conveyance by Elliott to Leak,, of a tract of land tying in said State of Kentucky, Elliott pleaded non assumpsit and the statute of limitations,.and had a verdict and judgment; from which Leak has appealed to this court. The facts are preserved by bill of exception, from which it appears that about sixteen…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Parsons v. RandolphMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Smith v. AshbySupreme Court of Missouri · 1855