Legal Opinion

Lansden v. McCarthy

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1869PublishedCited by 32 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. Tbe contract, was assignable. (North v. Turner, 9 Serg. & Rawle, 248; More v. Mazzini, 32 Cal. 92; Hay v. Smith, 49 Barb. 360 ; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594 ; Jorden v. Gillen, 44 N. H. 424.) I. The contract was executory, and could not legally be assigned to appellants. (Robson & Sharpe v. Drummond, 2 Barn. & Adol. 303 ; Lealiey v. Dugdale’s Adm’r, 27 Mo. 439.) n.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. Tbe contract, was assignable. (North v. Turner, 9 Serg. & Rawle, 248; More v. Mazzini, 32 Cal. 92; Hay v. Smith, 49 Barb. 360 ; Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594 ; Jorden v. Gillen, 44 N. H. 424.) I. The contract was executory, and could not legally be assigned to appellants. (Robson & Sharpe v. Drummond, 2 Barn. & Adol. 303 ; Lealiey v. Dugdale’s Adm’r, 27 Mo. 439.) n. The contract was personal in its character, and, as such, could not be assigned to appellants without the consent of respondent. (Robson et al. v. Drummond, supra.)

1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge

The question here arises upon a demurrer to the petition. The petition shows substantially that .the defendant, on the 31st of May, 1864, entered into a written contract with Bedard & Knickerbocker, the plaintiffs’ assignors, by which he agreed to furnish to them, at the St. Charles Hotel, in Cairo, Illinois, all the fresh beef, pork, and mutton that might be ordered and required by said Bedard & Knickerbocker or their agents, for the use and consumption of said hotel, for the year 'then next ensuing, at ten cents per pound-, Bedard & Knickerbocker 'on their part agreeing to pay for the meat…

2Cited by32 opinions

  1. Florance v. KresgeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
  2. La Rue v. GroezingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Crane Ice Cream Co. v. Terminal Freezing & Heating Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
  4. Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  5. D. C. Hardy Implement Co. v. South Bend Iron WorksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API