George M. Howe & Co. v. Jones

• Decision Date: 25 October 1881
• Citation: 57 Iowa 130,10 N.W. 299
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE M. HOWE & CO. v. JONES AND OTHERS.

57 Iowa 130

10 N.W. 299

GEORGE M. HOWE & CO.

v.JONES AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 25, 1881.

Appeal from Marshall county.

Supplemental opinion.

*299PER CURIAM.

1. A petition for a rehearing was filed by plaintiffs, which directs our attention to some points of the opinion that may be made plainer by a brief additional consideration. Counsel object to the conclusion of the eleventh point of the opinion, and insist that there was no payment for the judgment by the intervenors which takes the transaction out of the operation of the statute of frauds. Facts upon which our conclusion, announced in this point, is based are stated in the eighth point, and in other parts of the opinion, as well as in the eleventh point itself. The record warrants the statement of another fact which does not clearly appear in the opinion. namely: Services of the intervenors, Cosswell & Meeker, were rendered under an agreement that they should be paid for by the assignment of the judgment. This agreement was first made during the progress of the litigation, and before all the services were rendered. Upon this agreement the intervenors relied for compensation of their services before and afterwards rendered. If A., who is in the employment of B., agrees to accept, as compensation for past and future services, specified personal property, and if in fulfilment of this agreement A. completes the services, and B. thereupon orally transfers the property without delivery, the transaction will not be within the statute of frauds. There is a contract for services to be paid for by the transfer of personal property. When the transfer is made the law will regard that payment has been made for the property. This is the precise case before us. Our conclusion does not require the citation of authorities in its support.

2. Counsel for plaintiffs, in their original argument, insisted that the evidence failed to show “a setting apart as required by law of such part as they bought of a judgment which called for notes' face, say $1,500, a part of which were worthless and cost $180.87 and costs, say $300, not then taxed, a part of which were ordered taxed to the Binfords.” We have stated counsel's position in their own language. They complain that it is not noticed in our opinion. It will be observed that intervenors claim, under an assignment of the judgment, to the extent of $1,000. There was no assignment of notes, costs, etc. The assignment sufficiently...