Welles v. Gaty
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. It is contended for the plaintiff that the contract having been rescinded, there was, at the time of bringing suit, no valid contract existing, affecting the right of the plaintiff to recover alone, and in his own name, for he alone had paid the money for which he had received no consideration.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. It is contended for the plaintiff that the contract having been rescinded, there was, at the time of bringing suit, no valid contract existing, affecting the right of the plaintiff to recover alone, and in his own name, for he alone had paid the money for which he had received no consideration. There was no obligation on the plaintiff, after the reeission of the contract, to bring his special action on the contract.. 2 Carr and Payne, 286; 4 Bing. 5; 12 J. R. 363, 274; 5 J. R. 85; 5 Mass. R. 199; 13 Mass. R. 139. The nature of the action, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtNafton, J.
Welles and Wetmore contracted with the Dry Dock Company of St. Louis, and Gaty, McCune and Glasby, for the building of a steam ferry boat. The contract was a written one, and purported to be between Gaty, McCune & Glasby, of the first part, the Dry Dock Company of the second part, and Welles and Wetmore of the third part. The boat was to be built in specified manner, and delivered in a specified time. From some cause, not material to be enquired into, the boat was not ready in time, and Welles and Wetmore refused to receive it when it was finished, and treating the contract as rescinded,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gould v. GouldCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dewey v. CareySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Frumberg v. HaderleinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912