May v. Moore
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. — How. E. M. Hughes, Judge. The contract is against public policy and void. The contract is void under the statute (E. S. 1899, sec. 3418), for the reason, no memorandum thereof was made, and was not, in fact could not, be performed within one year. "Withnell v. Pelzold, 104 Mo. 509; Combs v. Transfer Co., 58 Mo. App. 112; s. c., 107 Mo. 351; Shultz v. Tatum, 35 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. — How. E. M. Hughes, Judge. The contract is against public policy and void. The contract is void under the statute (E. S. 1899, sec. 3418), for the reason, no memorandum thereof was made, and was not, in fact could not, be performed within one year. "Withnell v. Pelzold, 104 Mo. 509; Combs v. Transfer Co., 58 Mo. App. 112; s. c., 107 Mo. 351; Shultz v. Tatum, 35 Mo. App. 143. The contract is void, because it amounts to a trading in the appointment of an administrator. Kick v. Merry, 23 Mo. 72; Kribben v. Hayeraft, 26 Mo. 396; Porter v. Jones, 52 Mo. 403;…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
-In this ease the defendant stood on a demurrer to plaintiff’s petition and judgment went accordingly. The petition states in substance, that on May 28, 1896, defendant James D. Moore, Jr., was appointed administrator of the estate of James D. Moore, deceased, qualified and gave bond as such; that while acting as administrator, to-wit, December 15, 1897, the probate court ordered defendant to give a new bond; that on February 11, 1898, an agreement was made between plaintiff and defendant by which the latter, in consideration of the former’s signing as surety the new bond which the defendant…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Biest v. VerSteeg Shoe Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
3Cited by4 opinions
- Braudis v. HelfrichSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- In re Irwin's EstateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Zeidler v. SchneiderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- McCrary v. ThompsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907