Viley v. Pettit
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 96 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Although services are rendered for the benefit of another without his request or privity, yet if he subsequently assents thereto, or if, after the services are rendered, he has knowledge thereof and acquiesces therein, a previous request and consequent promise may be implied.
Read the full summary
Case 96 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM PAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Although services are rendered for the benefit of another without his request or privity, yet if he subsequently assents thereto, or if, after the services are rendered, he has knowledge thereof and acquiesces therein, a previous request and consequent promise may be implied. (Smith on Contracts, 5 Am. ed., top p. 194, side p. 169; Wood on Master and Servant, top p. 110, sec. 71, ed. of 1877; Idem, sec. 67; Allen v. Richmond College, 41 Mo., 302; 1 Parsons on Contracts, 5th ed., pp. 469, 473; Greenleaf, vol. 2, p. 93, sec.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The petition to which a general demurrer was sustained. by the lower court, is as follows:
“Plaintiff, Willa Viley, says that prior to and on February 9, 1893, he was engaged in the city of Lexington in conducting a general real estate business, including the buying and selling for others of real estate in that city and county of Fayette and elsewhere, upon commission, which facts were then known *578to the defendant, William Pettit; that while engaged in said business'he performed services for the defendant with his consent, in endeavoring to effect a…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Fordtran v. StowersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Howell v. BlackburnSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
- City Builders Finance Co. v. StahlSupreme Court of Florida · 1925
- Ballentine & Boone v. MercerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Stevens v. Bailey & HowardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.