Killough v. Payne
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL, from Cross Circuit Court. J. E. Riddick, Judge. Payne sued Killough & Erwin in a justice’s court, alleging -that they were indebted to him in the sum of $26.65 for money had and received for his use and benefit from Edgar, Gage & Co. On appeal to the Circuit Court the defendants filed an ..answer denying that they received any sum for the use of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
APPEAL, from Cross Circuit Court. J. E. Riddick, Judge. Payne sued Killough & Erwin in a justice’s court, alleging -that they were indebted to him in the sum of $26.65 for money had and received for his use and benefit from Edgar, Gage & Co. On appeal to the Circuit Court the defendants filed an ..answer denying that they received any sum for the use of the plaintiff. On a trial before a jury the facts proved were in •substance as follows: Edgar, Gage & Co., owed W. E. Reeves $274 for ties furnished them, and he gave his draft on them for that amount to the defendants, Killough & Erwin. ’ The…
1Per curiam
Consideration: Statute of Frauds. There is no evidence tending to prove that Killough & Erwin received any money for the use- of Payne. There was only a promise by them to accept the draft of Reeves in favor of Payne.
The consideration of this promise was the payment, by-Edgar, Gage & Co., of an undisputed debt due from them to’ Killough & Erwin, which was evidenced by a draft accepted' by Edgar, Gage & Co. in favor of Killough & Erwin; but the payment of a sum which one is already legally bound to pay is not a valid consideration for a contract.
There being no new consideration for the promise…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Burns v. YocumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Smith v. SpradlinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Consolidated National Bank v. Anglo & London Paris National BankArizona Supreme Court · 1928
- Holmes v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966