Rottman v. Fix
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St, Lonis Circuit Court, Amos M. Thayer, Judge. The promise must be distinctly collateral, to come within the statute. 3 Pars. Cont. 20; 2 Story Cont., sect. 1437. The promise sued on was original. Chase r. Day, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 113 ; Flanders v. Orlino, 2 Duer, 206 ; Post n. Teohegan, 5 Daly (N. Y.) 216 ; Hartley v. Vassar, 88 111. 561; McCoffiee v. Pedcliff, 3 Rob. 445. The promisor had a direct interest in the matter concerning which the promise was made.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St, Lonis Circuit Court, Amos M. Thayer, Judge. The promise must be distinctly collateral, to come within the statute. 3 Pars. Cont. 20; 2 Story Cont., sect. 1437. The promise sued on was original. Chase r. Day, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 113 ; Flanders v. Orlino, 2 Duer, 206 ; Post n. Teohegan, 5 Daly (N. Y.) 216 ; Hartley v. Vassar, 88 111. 561; McCoffiee v. Pedcliff, 3 Rob. 445. The promisor had a direct interest in the matter concerning which the promise was made. Kelley v. Schupp, 60 Wis. 176.
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, J.
The plaintiffs brought an action before a justice of the peace, on the following statement:
“The plaintiffs state that, on or about the twenty-third day of October, 1883, he sold to the defendant, Henry Bormann, at the instance and request - of the defendant, Henry Fix, one barrel of 49 Gl. of Capitol whiskey, at $1.75 per gallon, $85.75; and six jugs of *572■Steinhager, at $6, making a total of $91.75, for which the plaintiff prays judgment,” etc.
Bormann was not served. Judgment was rendered against Fix, who appealed.
In the circuit court, the plaintiffs amended their statement so as to read:
“…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bissig v. BrittonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Barrett v. McHughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Conkey v. HopkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Post v. GeogheganNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1874
3Cited by6 opinions
- Swarens v. PfniselSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Gill v. ReedMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Penninger v. ReilleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Chick v. Frey Coal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Price v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.