Byrd v. Fox
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Platte Circuit Court. 1. Any promise or agreement made to pay Fox the one-half he got for the contract is void for want of consideration. — See 1 New York Digest, 39; 6 Johns.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Platte Circuit Court. 1. Any promise or agreement made to pay Fox the one-half he got for the contract is void for want of consideration. — See 1 New York Digest, 39; 6 Johns. Rep., 194; 8 Ibid., 444. 2. If any promise was made by Byrd to pay one-half he got for the contract, it was conditional (viz.) “To pay when he got some money,” and until he (Fox) shows that he (Byrd) has had money subsequent to the promise, he is not entitled by law to recover.— See 1 New York Digest, 38; 14 Johns. Rep., 178; 1 Cow., 349; 7 Johns. Rep., 36. 3. There was no partnership existing between…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
Fox sued Byrd in a justice’s court, where, after judgment, the cause was taken to the Circuit Court, when, upon a trial de n'óvo, he recovered judgment for $37, from which Byrd appealed to this Court.
It was agreed between Byrd and Fox, that Byrd should go to Fort Leavenworth, and put in a bid in their joint names, to furnish the garrison with fifteen hundred cords of wood, and that they should be equal partners in the contract; that Byrd might bid as he thought most advisable, and Fox would be responsible jointly with him for his acts. Byrd made a bid for the contract, and his bid was the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Musier v. TrumpbourNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by12 opinions
- Buckner v. RiesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- Crockett v. BurlesonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1906
- Steele v. JohnsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Scott v. CaruthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- North St. Louis Planing Mill Co. v. EssexMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.