Cook v. Elliott
Decision Date | 31 March 1864 |
Citation | 34 Mo. 586 |
Parties | CATHARINE M. COOK, Appellant, v. ARTHUR W. ELLIOTT, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Common Pleas Court.
Rankin and Knox & Smith, for appellant.
R. S. Hart, for respondent.
This was a suit instituted in the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, to recover of the defendant upon his written undertaking to pay the debt of another, which undertaking is in the words and figures following, to-wit:
The petition alleges that at the maturity of said notes Elliott was the owner and in the possession of the Sigerson nursery stock, which is not denied by the answer; also, that said defendant received a good and valuable consideration for his said undertaking, which is denied by the answer.
The defendant in his answer states, that he never received from Sigerson & Bro., or from plaintiff, any consideration whatever for said promise.
Upon the trial plaintiff read in evidence the Sigerson notes and the obligation of defendant, and also two letters of defendant, addressed to J. S. Cook, one dated October 20, 1858, and the other May 24, 1859.No other evidence...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Macfarland v. Heim
... ... in writing, it must have a new consideration to be binding ... Glenn v. Lehnen, 54 Mo. 45; Pfeiffer v ... Kingsland, 25 Mo. 66; Cook v. Elliott, 34 Mo ... 586; Hartman v. Redman, 21 Mo.App. 126; Tiedeman ... Com. Paper, sec. 417. (4) The point made by appellants that ... ...
-
Gregory v. McCormick
... ... Gregg, 31 P. 612; Bank v. Wood, 19 N.Y.S. 81; ... Williams v. Williams, 67 Mo. 665; Pfeiffer v ... Kingsland, 25 Mo. 66; Cook v. Elliott, 34 Mo ... 586; Grady v. Ins. Co., 60 Mo. 116; Hartman v ... Redman, 21 Mo.App. 126 ... Nathan ... Frank and C ... ...
-
Gwin v. Waggoner
... ... consideration was necessary to support their promise ... Pfeiffer v. Kingsland, 25 Mo. 66; Cook" v ... Elliott, 34 Mo. 586; Williams v. Williams, 67 Mo. 662 ... Macfarlane, ... J. Barclay, J., is absent ... \xC2" ... ...
-
D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Lawson
...Stockwell, 9 Allen 45, 46; Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. 198; Howard v. Jones, 13 Mo.App. 595, 596; Pfeiffer v. Kingland, 25 Mo. 66; Cook v. Elliott, 34 Mo. 586; Stagg Linnenfelser, 59 Mo. 336, 342, 343. HENRY BRUMBACK, for the respondent: The respondent's evidence, viz.: the contract of agency......