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