Walther v. Merrell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The promise is based upon a valuable consideration moving between the promisor and promisee, from which the promisor derived an actual benefit and from which he anticipated a benefit, in view of which the promise was made, and hence the promise was original and not collateral. — Cross v. Richardson, 30 Yt. 641; Kutzmeyer v. Evans, 27 N. J. L. 371 Farley v. Cleveland, 4 Cow. 432; Marks v. Bank, 8-Mo. 316; Can v. Cassell, 34 Mo. 513; Hudson…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The promise is based upon a valuable consideration moving between the promisor and promisee, from which the promisor derived an actual benefit and from which he anticipated a benefit, in view of which the promise was made, and hence the promise was original and not collateral. — Cross v. Richardson, 30 Yt. 641; Kutzmeyer v. Evans, 27 N. J. L. 371 Farley v. Cleveland, 4 Cow. 432; Marks v. Bank, 8-Mo. 316; Can v. Cassell, 34 Mo. 513; Hudson v. Busby,. 48 Mo. 35 ; Lampson v. Hobart, 28 Yt. 697 ; Mallory v. Qillett, 21 N. Y. 412, 425 ; Hopkinson v. Davis, 5…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
The petition of plaintiff alleged that in March, 1877, and for a long time prior thereto, and after that date, defendant was president of a banking corporation called the Bank of St. Louis, doing a general banking business in St. Louis ; that on July 12,. 1877, plaintiff had $4,200 on deposit in said bank, which had been received and deposited by him as receiver in a cause then pending; that “on July 14, 1877, having fears as to the solvency of said bank and the ■safety of the moneys so deposited, he went to said bank for the purpose of withdrawing said funds from the same, as he had a lawful…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Mallory v. . GillettNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Leonard v. VredenburghNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Fullam v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
- Barker v. ScudderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Kingsley v. BalcomeNew York Supreme Court · 1848
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lindley v. KellySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Moore v. McHaneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Winn v. HillyerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Kansas City Sewer Pipe Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1889
- Ryan Equipment Co. v. FickenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.