Morse v. Rathburn
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Second District Court. I. The proviso of forfeiture in the bond goes to the whole contract— not to any trivial, unimportant stipulation or covenant therein. If it did, the sum, perhaps, might be regarded as a penalty. But the parties show by the very terms of their agreement that they intend to fix the amount' to be paid for a failure to carry out and perform a stipulated act, viz: the whole contract.
Read the full summary
Error to Second District Court. I. The proviso of forfeiture in the bond goes to the whole contract— not to any trivial, unimportant stipulation or covenant therein. If it did, the sum, perhaps, might be regarded as a penalty. But the parties show by the very terms of their agreement that they intend to fix the amount' to be paid for a failure to carry out and perform a stipulated act, viz: the whole contract. And this is in a case “where the damages resulting from the non-performance of the contract are uncertain, and cannot he admeasured with any degree of accuracy therefore (it has been…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
On the 7th day of February, 1867, by an agreement in writing, Morse sold to Rathburn his farm in Jefferson county for the sum of twenty-one thousand dollars. By the terms of the agreement nine thousand dollars was to be paid on the 1st day of April, 1867, at the office of Bogy & Fry, in the city of St. Louis, and for the remainder of the purchase-money Rathburn-was to execute his two several promissory notes for six thousand dollars each, payable in one and two years respectively, with six per cent, inter • est from date.
The payment of the notes was to be secured by the execution of a deed of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Cotheal v. . TalmageNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Clement v. . CashNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Cotes v. City of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Lampman v. . CochranNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Daily v. LitchfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Wilt v. WaterfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- Thompson v. St. Charles CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Yerxa, Andrews & Thurston v. Randazzo MacAroni Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1926
- Cochran v. People's Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarlingCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.