Powers v. Allen
| Decision Date | 31 March 1851 |
| Citation | 14 Mo. 367 |
| Parties | POWERS v. ALLEN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.
FRISSELL, for Appellant. The consideration of the note was either for the unexpired term of Wm. Powers or to prevent Allen from publishing John A. Powers in the Lynchburg papers or the combination of both considerations. If the note was given upon the statement of Allen, that 15 months of his time was unexpired, then it was given upon the misrepresentation of Allen as to that matter, willful it must be presumed, and he would not be entitled to recover only between a third and a fourth of the amount. If the sole consideration of the note was the value of Wm. Powers' unexpired time it is contended that the plaintiff has no right to recover. Allowing that William did wrong in leaving Allen for argument's sake still the defendant was under no legal or moral obligation to compensate Allen for his time. It is laid down in all the books that a written promise to pay the debt of another or for an injury done by another after the debt has been contracted or the injury done, is a nudum pactum. Mills v. Wyman, 3 Pick. 207; Cook v. Bradley, 7 Conn. R. 57; Choff v. Thomas, 7 Cowen, 358; Livingston v. Rogers, 1 Caine, 583; Comstock v. Smith, 7 Johns. 87; Leonard v. Brenderbough, 8 Johns. 29; Hicks v. Burhans, 10 Johns. 243. If Allen and J. A. Powers had made a contract and Powers had agreed to give Allen $100, to release Winiam, then the consideration of the note would have been good. If the threat of publishing J. A. Powers in the Lynchburg papers was the true consideration either in whole or part of the note, it is too clear to need either argument or authorities to show that Allen ought not to recover. The criminal law of the country might well be invoked in such a case. If the court should be of opinion upon the case as above stated with the authorities, that Allen ought to recover for the value of William's services, still the judgment ought to be reversed for the reason that it should have been left to the jury to say what portion of the note was for his services, and what portion was to prevent being brought into notoriety by being published in the Lynchburg papers. It is a well settled law that when a note has two considerations, one good and the other bad, a jury may determine the amount of the good consideration and find their verdict accordingly. Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. 198; 2 Kent's Com. 467.
STEVENSON, for Defendant. That a father is entitled to the service of the child until he is 21 years of age, and can dispose of his labor as he sees proper. Reeve's Dom. Rel. 289. That a child is the servant of his father until he arrives at the age of 21 years, and if the father chooses to do so he can place him to labor with any other master, and any one decoying or enticing him away is liable to an action for so doing; as also for harboring him if he leave voluntarily. Reeves' Dom. Rel. 376. That the father of Wm. H. Powers having by parol agreement placed his son to labor with Richard M. Allen for three years; the decoying away of Wm. H. Powers or the harboring him after voluntarily leaving his master by John A. Powers, gave to Allen a right to sue for damages and the bond being in consideration of the services of Wm. H. Powers and the further consideration of a forbearance to sue, or in consideration of an injury sustained by the promisee is for a good and sufficient consideration in law, and the recovery upon it was proper. Mullanphy v. Riley, 10 Mo. R. 489; 8 Mo. R. 316.
The evidence in the case as prescribed in the bill of exceptions, is substantially as follows: William Powers, a brother of the defendant, had been placed by his father with Allen, the plaintiff, to learn the trade of a tailor. The testimony is somewhat conflicting and doubtful as to the length of time he was to remain and consequently the portion unfulfilled at the time he absconded, but it was proven that the defendant knew what the understanding was about the time it was originally entered into, and it is at least inferable from the correspondence between him and the plaintiff, which resulted in giving the note in suit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co.
...by the record that exceptions were taken at the time the instructions were given. State v. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243, 13 S. W. 937; Powers v. Allen, 14 Mo. 367; Dozier v. Jerman, 30 Mo. 216, — and other cases. Defendant would hardly except to the giving of its own instruction, nor did it do so. C......
-
Baker v. The Kansas City, fort Scott & Memphis v. Company
...show that exceptions were taken to them at the time they were given, otherwise they will not be entertained by the supreme court. Powers v. Allen, 14 Mo. 367; Dozier Jerman, 30 Mo. 216; State v. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243. Appellant could not have objected, at the time, to an instruction it asked ......
-
Gaines v. Fender
...v. Williams, 59 Mo. 105; Boyse v. Burt, 34 Mo. 74; Cowen v. St. L. & I. M. Ry. Co., 48 Mo. 556; Gordon v. Gordon, 13 Mo. 215; Powers v. Allen, 14 Mo. 367. It will not be improper, however, to remark that, after the rejection of the defendant's tax deed, dated June, 1875, it was error to giv......
-
Hill v. Bailey
...exceptions to the referee's report came too late to be available. Waldo v. Russell, 5 Mo. 387; Railroad Co. v. Moore, 37 Mo. 338; Powers v. Allen, 14 Mo. 367; Shaler v. Van Wormer, 33 Mo. 386. A considerable number of witnesses were introduced by the plaintiffs, who testified to frequent co......