Killough v. Payne

52 Ark. 174
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided May 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Consideration: Statute of Frauds. There is no evidence tending to prove that Killough & Erwin received any money for the use- of Payne. There was only a promise by them to accept the draft of Reeves in favor of Payne.

The consideration of this promise was the payment, by-Edgar, Gage & Co., of an undisputed debt due from them to’ Killough & Erwin, which was evidenced by a draft accepted' by Edgar, Gage & Co. in favor of Killough & Erwin; but the payment of a sum which one is already legally bound to pay is not a valid consideration for a contract.

There being no new consideration for the promise by Killough & Erwin to pay Payne’s debt, it is a collateral undertaking within the statute of frauds and is void. Chapline v. Atkinson, 45 Ark., 67.

Reverse and remand.

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

Killough v. Payne, 52 Ark. 174 (Ark. 1889).

52 Ark. 174 (Killough v. Payne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holmes v. Thompson
402 S.W.2d 400 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1966)
Smith v. Spradlin
206 S.W. 327 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1918)
Burns v. Yocum
98 S.W. 956 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)