Stickney v. Hughes
Wyoming Supreme Court
Error to the District Court, Albany County, Hon. Charles W. Beamel, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The petition will not support the judgment, as there can be no cause of action for the amount paid on the note for $450. The contract provides for refunding the money paid on the note for $550, if either note. The contract is ambiguous, and cannot be enforced. It is uncertain and unintelligible, and, therefore, void. (Bish.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, Albany County, Hon. Charles W. Beamel, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The petition will not support the judgment, as there can be no cause of action for the amount paid on the note for $450. The contract provides for refunding the money paid on the note for $550, if either note. The contract is ambiguous, and cannot be enforced. It is uncertain and unintelligible, and, therefore, void. (Bish. Contracts, Secs. 117, 316, 390; 2 Pars. Contracts, Sec. 561; 7 Ency. Law (2d Ed.), 116; Balch v. Arnold, 9 Wyo., 17.) The payment of installments after…
1Opinion of the Court
PotteR, Justice.
The plaintiff in error, Martha E. Stickney, was defendant below in an action brought by Lewallen Hughes, defendant in error here, to recover the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars and interest, alleged to be due upon a contract entered into between the parties on April 2, 1898, at the same time that two notes were executed by .Hughes and wife to Mrs. Stickney for $450 and $550, respectively. The claim asserted by the petition is the promise of Mrs. Stickney to refund any money that may have been paid upon the four hundred and fifty dollar note; upon the happening of a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Fire Ins. Assn., Ltd. v. WickhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Diven v. JohnsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Simanovich v. WoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railway Co. v. RoeschIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Johnson v. SoulisWyoming Supreme Court · 1975
- State v. GeorgeWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. v. Potter CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Morrison v. Cottonwood Development Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1928
- Bressan v. HerrickIdaho Supreme Court · 1922
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.