Holt v. Dollarhide
| Decision Date | 31 October 1875 |
| Citation | 61 Mo. 433 |
| Parties | JAS. I. HOLT, Respondent, v. WM. DOLLARHIDE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hickory County Circuit Court.
Ewing & Smith, for Respondent, cited Sinclair vs. Bradley, 52 Mo., 180; Flanagan vs. Hutchinson, 47 Mo., 237; Howard vs. Coshow, 33 Mo., 118; Besshears vs. Rowe, 46 Mo., 501; 3 Pars. Cont., 23, 24; Nelson vs. Boynton, 3 Met., 396.
Waldo P. Johnson, for Appellant.
The judgment was for the plaintiff below, and the only point made in this court for a reversal is that the agreement on which the action was brought, was within the statute of frauds, and was not evidenced by any note or memorandum in writing. The case shows that Rice executed and delivered to McCloud, a bond for the payment of a certain sum of money, and that McCloud assigned and delivered the same to the plaintiff, Holt; that Rice sold to the defendant, Dollarhide, a lot of land for which defendant agreed to pay a stipulated amount; that Rice, at the time of the sale of the land, was owing the plaintiff the sum mentioned in the above bond, and that he ordered and directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the purchase money for the land, which the defendant promised and agreed to do.
It is very plain that the obligation which the defendant assumed was not to answer for the debt or default of another, and was not within the statute of frauds, requiring a writing to make it valid.
The promise was a direct undertaking to pay his own debt, and not dependent on any collateral consideration. This point has been so often decided in this court that it is useless to elaborate it. (Besshears vs. Rowe, 46 Mo., 501; Flanagan vs. Hutchinson, 47 Mo., 237; Sinclair vs. Bradley, 52 Mo., 180.)
Judgment affirmed.
All the other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pile v. Bright
...v. Hall, 140 Mo. 277. (4) Even the novation of a debt is not within the statute of frauds. Schaufeldt v. Smith, 139 Mo. 377; Holt v. Dollarhide, 61 Mo. 433; Flanagan Hutchinson, 47 Mo. 237. (5) The court committed error in not distinguishing between what the law regards as fraud where parti......
-
Schufeldt v. Smith
...the partnership owed to others. It was not the promise to pay the debt of another within the meaning of the statute of frauds. Holt v. Dollarhide, 61 Mo. 433; Flanagan Hutchinson, 47 Mo. 237. We are of the opinion that the Lutz notes are the bona fide obligations of the corporation and ther......
-
Amonett v. Montague
...Rowe, 33 Mo. 118; Manny vs. Frazier's Adm'r, 27 Mo. 419; Robins vs. Myers, 10 Mo. 538; Rogers & Peck vs. Gosnell, 51 Mo. 467; Holt vs. Dollarhide, 61 Mo. 433.) III. There was no legal presumption, on a proper construction of the contract, that the debt assumed was a joint one. IV. The court......
-
L. And A. Scharff Distilling Company v. Springfield Coal, Ice and Transfer Company
...Black v. Paul, 10 Mo. 106; Howard v. Coshow, 33 Mo. 123; Beshears v. Rowe, 46 Mo. 501; Flanagan v. Hutchinson, 47 Mo. 237; Holt v. Dollarhide, 61 Mo. 433; Wright v. McCully, 67 Mo. 134; Schufeldt v. Smith, 139 Mo. 377; Beardslee v. Morgner, 4 Mo.App. 142; Wilson v. Vass, 54 Mo.App. 221. (2)......