Tucker v. Randall
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Spink county. Hon. A. W. Campbell, Judge. Action on contract. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. The alleged contract was neither signed nor delivered, and hence was not an “express contract in writing” within the meaning of § 3721, Comp. Laws. 3 Am. & Eng. Encyc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Spink county. Hon. A. W. Campbell, Judge. Action on contract. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. The alleged contract was neither signed nor delivered, and hence was not an “express contract in writing” within the meaning of § 3721, Comp. Laws. 3 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law 826; 7 Id. 117; Bishop on Contr. § 172. It is elementary that a contract may be enforced as a binding obligation, though not signed by either party. It is the assent, or meeting of minds, that makes a contract. 1 Parsons, Contr._(7th Ed.) § 476.
1Opinion of the CourtCorson, P. J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover a balance alleged to be due upon contract. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for $8,761.90, and the defendant appealed.
The plaintiff’s case is thus stated in his complaint: “That on the 15th day of October, 1887, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby plaintiff was to furnish to defendant the sum of $10,000, to be loaned by the defendant upon securities to be taken and held in the name of this plaintiff until the contract was terminated; that as a part of said contract it was agreed that said defendant was to have sole charge…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Goldsmith v. SawyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Hill v. EldredCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874