Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Fairchild
| Decision Date | 29 November 1910 |
| Docket Number | No. 6,734.,6,734. |
| Citation | 93 N.E. 176 |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. FAIRCHILD. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
On petition for a rehearing. Overruled.
For former opinion, see 91 N. E. 836.
The questions argued on this petition are substantially disposed of by the ruling in American Car Co. v. Smock, 93 N. E. 78. The statement of facts heretofore made is believed to be sufficient to show the applicability of the legal propositions involved. The principle which prevents the appellant from holding the written release and refusing to pay to the appellee the consideration upon which it had been obtained is not a “new question of law,” but a very ancient and well-settled one.
The petition is overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Speckman v. City of Indianapolis
...359, 91 N.E. 749, reh. den. 48 Ind.App. 371, 93 N.E. 78; Illinois C.R. Co. v. Fairchild (1910), 48 Ind.App. 300, 91 N.E. 836, reh. den. 93 N.E. 176; Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan (1892), 6 Ind.App. 109, 32 N.E. 802. We have also found independent consideration to exist where the employee assign......
-
Ohio Table Pad Co. of Indiana, Inc. v. Hogan
...359, 91 N.E. 749, reh. den. 48 Ind.App. 371, 93 N.E. 78; Illinois C.R. Co. v. Fairchild (1910), 48 Ind.App. 300, 91 N.E. 836, reh. den. 93 N.E. 176; Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan (1892), 6 Ind.App. 109, 32 N.E. 802. We have also found independent consideration to exist where the employee assign......
- McKee v. McKee
- McKee v. McKee