Gieseker v. Vollmer

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gieseker v. Vollmer

88 Mo. App. 462, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 78

DecidedApril 9, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 88 Mo. App. 462 (Gieseker v. Vollmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gieseker v. Vollmer, 88 Mo. App. 462, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 78 (Mo. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

BOND, J.

The trial court evidently found from the evidence that the defendant added her name to the note in suit after its delivery to the payee and after its maturity, without receiving any consideration whatever for such act. Under these circumstances she did not become bound for the performance of the contract expressed by the note, which was wholly a nudum pactum as to her. 'The contract in question being wholly executory, was not enforcible against her in any capacity, in the absence of a legal consideration. Stagg v. Linnen[465]*465felser, 59 Mo. 336; McMahon v. Geiger, 73 Mo. loc. cit. 148, Lowenstein v. Sorge, 75 Mo. App. 281.

The case presents nothing for review, since there was ample testimony to support the finding of the lower court. Its judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BOND, J.

The trial court evidently found from the evidence that the defendant added her name to the note in suit after its delivery to the payee and after its maturity, without receiving any consideration whatever for such act. Under these circumstances she did not become bound for the performance of the contract expressed by the note, which was wholly a nudum pactum as to her. 'The contract in question being wholly executory, was not enforcible against her in any capacity, in the absence of a legal consideration. Stagg v. Linnen[465]*465felser, 59 Mo. 336; McMahon v. Geiger, 73 Mo. loc. cit. 148, Lowenstein v. Sorge, 75 Mo. App. 281.

The case presents nothing for review, since there was ample testimony to support the finding of the lower court. Its judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 Mo. App. 462, 1901 Mo. App. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gieseker-v-vollmer-moctapp-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack