Budd v. Eyermann
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Lindley, J. The admitted facts establish a case of money paid, by mistake of facts, as alleged in the petition, for the recovery of which an action lies. — 4 Wait’s Act. & Def. 469; Harris v. Board, 3 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Lindley, J. The admitted facts establish a case of money paid, by mistake of facts, as alleged in the petition, for the recovery of which an action lies. — 4 Wait’s Act. & Def. 469; Harris v. Board, 3 Mo. App. 570; Koontz v.Bank, 51 Mo. 275 ; Bank v. Allen, 59 Mo. 313 ; Lawrence v. Bank, 54 N. Y. 435 ; Burr v. Veeder, 3 Wend. 412. “ The purchaser of a chattel cannot rescind the sale without returning it to the vendor, unless it be entirely worthless to both parties. If it be of any value to the vendor, or if its loss-would be any injury to him, it must…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.
The petition states that the plaintiffs agreed to purchase from the defendant a certain judgment of which he was the owner, “ for and in consideration of an amount equal to said judgment and all interest thereon and costs of suit; ” that this amount, at the date of the purchase, was $325.25, provided nothing had been previously paid; and the plaintiffs paid that sum to the defendant, who thereupon assigned the judgment to them ; that there had then, in fact, been paid on the judgment divers sums, amounting to $208.25r which payments had never been credited on the judgment,. *439but were concealed…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Davis v. KrumMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882
- Hanson v. JonesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Rogers v. RehardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Elsworth Coal Co. v. QuadeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888