Harburg v. Arnold
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to Jackson Circuit Court.- — Hon. J. W. Henry, Judge. Now, as to Hicks v. Hamilton, 144 .Mo. 495, before the decision of that case it had been the law that a third party for whose benefit a promise is made might sue thereon regardless of any previous relation on his part to the transaction.
Read the full summary
Error to Jackson Circuit Court.- — Hon. J. W. Henry, Judge. Now, as to Hicks v. Hamilton, 144 .Mo. 495, before the decision of that case it had been the law that a third party for whose benefit a promise is made might sue thereon regardless of any previous relation on his part to the transaction. By Hicks v. Hamilton, the Missouri Supreme Court changed that rule and held that before such beneficiary could sue, he must-show some privity or obligation in his favor as against the other parties. Hence Hicks v. Hamilton would bar recovery on a note assumed in a deed, unless between this assumption…
1Opinion of the CourtBroaddus, J.
This case comes up on motion to quash the writ of error herein for the following reason, to-wit: That the cause was duly appealed on the twenty-third day of May, 1898, by the plaintiff herein to this court, and that on the sixteenth dáy of January, 1899, on the hearing of said appeal, the judgment of the circuit court was by this court affirmed. Therefore, the cause is res adjudicaba.
It is admitted by the plaintiff in error that, as a rule, when a cause has been appealed and the appeal is heard and judgment on the merits, that a writ of error will not lie. The question has been adjudicated in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pratt v. ConwaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Crone v. StindeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Hicks v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Joseph Schnaider's Brewing Co. v. LevvieMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
3Cited by3 opinions
- Padgett v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- State v. FinleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Adams v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1905