Hanover Canal Co. v. Wilson
Wyoming Supreme Court
ERROR to the District Court, Big Horn County; HoN. Carroll H. Parmulb®, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The rights and obligations of the parties became merged in the second contract, which superseded the first. As Wilson had been in default under the first contract, and had obtained an extension of time to make the deferred payments, there was ample consideration for his entering into the second contract and assuming the additional obligations thereof.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court, Big Horn County; HoN. Carroll H. Parmulb®, Judge. The material facts are stated in the opinion. The rights and obligations of the parties became merged in the second contract, which superseded the first. As Wilson had been in default under the first contract, and had obtained an extension of time to make the deferred payments, there was ample consideration for his entering into the second contract and assuming the additional obligations thereof. Neither fraud, mistake nor undue influence was pleaded in the petition or proved at the trial and therefore the question…
1Opinion of the Court
Scott, Chirr Justicr.
Both of these proceedings arise out of the same facts and upon the same record of the trial in the court below of the case of Edward B. Wilson, plaintiff, and the Hanover Canal Company and the State Bank of Chicago, as defendants. The action was instituted by Wilson to recover damages for the alleged failure of the canal company to complete its canal and furnish water to irrigate his land within the time agreed and stipulated by the company in its contract with him. The case was tried to a jury which returned answers to 20 interrogatories which were submitted to them. The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. International Contracting Co. v. LamontSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Housekeeper Pub. Co. v. SwiftCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899
- Stow v. RussellIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- McCabe Const. Co. v. Utah Const. Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1912
- Greenawalt v. Natrona Improvement Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1907
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pleasant v. Arizona Storage & Distributing Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1928
- Pilcher v. HammWyoming Supreme Court · 1960
- Northwest Oil & Refining Co. v. Honolulu Oil Corp.District Court, D. Montana · 1961
- Stein v. SchunemanWyoming Supreme Court · 1929