Bell v. Simpson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Carroll Circuit Court. — Hon: E. J. Broadpus, J ndge. The settlement was a benefit to Chinn by discharging his debt to plaintiffs; and a contemporaneous benefit to a third person, based on the promise of another, is a valid consideration for the promise of that other.
Read the full summary
Error to Carroll Circuit Court. — Hon: E. J. Broadpus, J ndge. The settlement was a benefit to Chinn by discharging his debt to plaintiffs; and a contemporaneous benefit to a third person, based on the promise of another, is a valid consideration for the promise of that other. Cress v. Blodgett, 64 Mo. 449; Rogers v. Oosnell, 51 Mo. 466. Forbearance of legal proceedings against a debtor is a sufficient consideration for a promise by a third party to become surety or to do anything else in respect to the matter. Russell v. Babcock, 14 Me. 138; Vinal v. Richardson, 13 Allen 521; Read v. French,…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, J.
One J. E. Chinn, a merchant, being indebted to the plaintiffs for goods sold by them to him, in the sum of $1,000, sold his entire stock of goods in September, 1873, to one Wm. M. Kendrick, for forty acres of land, valued at $1,200, and about $600 in cash. On the 16th day of' September, 1873, Chinn re-sold the same land to said Kendrick, and took in payment therefor Kendrick’s note for $1,000, payable in twelve months from said date, with ten per cent interest from date. Chinn thereupon purchased from the defendant Simpson eighty acres of land estimated by some of the witnesses to be worth…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Boogher v. FrazierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Meyer v. RitterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1920
- Paxon v. Kregel Casket Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1928