Siewing v. Tacke
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to Gape Girardeau Court of Common Pleas. — ■ Ron. John A. Snider, Judge. It is fundamental that there must be a consideration to support a contract. Chenoweth v. Express Co., 93 Mo. App. 185. There was a controversy between Tacke and Antonette Zoellner as to Tacke’s liability on the $600 note. Tacke agreed to pay the other two notes with the express understanding that he should thereby be relieved from all further liability on any of the notes.
Read the full summary
Error to Gape Girardeau Court of Common Pleas. — ■ Ron. John A. Snider, Judge. It is fundamental that there must be a consideration to support a contract. Chenoweth v. Express Co., 93 Mo. App. 185. There was a controversy between Tacke and Antonette Zoellner as to Tacke’s liability on the $600 note. Tacke agreed to pay the other two notes with the express understanding that he should thereby be relieved from all further liability on any of the notes. The conditions were agreed- to and payment of the other two notes was made. That compromise amounted to an accord and satisfaction. The money…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
On November 6, 1889, Ferdinand Zoellner and William H. Tacke executed their promissory note for six hundred dollars to Antonette Zoellner, due one day after date, with six per cent interest per annum. The interest on the note was paid to Nov. 6, 1893. Mrs. Zoellner, the payee, died testate in the year 1894, and by her will bequeathed small legacies to certain of her children and grandchildren, the residue of her estate being bequeathed to Mathilda Siewing, her daughter. Henry F. Siewing, the husband of Mathilda.,, was named as executor in the will of Mrs. Zoellner. He qualified as -such and,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harrison Bros. v. Murray Iron Works Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
3Cited by1 opinion
- Shepard v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929