Casey v. Miller
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Kootenai County. The Revised Statutes of Idaho decides this case. Subdivision third of section 6010 reads as follows: “When the promise, being for an antecedent obligation of another, is made upon the consideration that the party receiving it cancels the antecedent -obligation, accepting the new promise as a substitute therefor; or upon the consideration that the party receiving it releases the property of another from levy, or his person from…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Kootenai County. The Revised Statutes of Idaho decides this case. Subdivision third of section 6010 reads as follows: “When the promise, being for an antecedent obligation of another, is made upon the consideration that the party receiving it cancels the antecedent -obligation, accepting the new promise as a substitute therefor; or upon the consideration that the party receiving it releases the property of another from levy, or his person from imprisonment under an execution on a judgment obtained upon the antecedent obligation; or upon' a consideration beneficial…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
This action was brought by the appellant to recover the sum of $275, interest, and costs. The amended' complaint states two causes of action. In the first cause of action appellant alleges that one Charles M. Gates was indebted to appellant in the sum of $315; that said Gates, in payment of said indebtedness, gave to appellant an order on the respondent for said sum; that thereafter respondent accepted said order, and paid appellant thereon the sum of forty-five-dollars, leaving, a balance due of $270. It is alleged in the second cause of action that one Frank Leighton, on or about, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barringer v. WardenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- McLaren v. HutchinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sherer v. RubedewIdaho Supreme Court · 1905