Killough v. Payne

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Killough v. Payne

52 Ark. 174

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 15, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 52 Ark. 174 (Killough v. Payne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Ark. 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/killough-v-payne-ark-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack