Rothermel v. Bell & Zoller Coal Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Rothermel v. Bell & Zoller Coal Co.

79 Ill. App. 667, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 358

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 26, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 79 Ill. App. 667 (Rothermel v. Bell & Zoller Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rothermel v. Bell & Zoller Coal Co., 79 Ill. App. 667, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 358 (Ill. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Windes

delivered the opinion of the court.

The finding of the court not being against the clear preponderance of the evidence, the judgment must stand, unless there was some error of law, as to which no question is made, except on the statute of frauds. It is contended that the statute of frauds prevents a recovery in this case, because the debt which appellant promised to pay was that of the transportation company—that his promise was not an original undertaking. This contention can not prevail. We have seen that the assets of the company were transferred to appellant. That was a sufficient consideration for his promise to pay the company’s debts. If he did not receive them that was his misfortune. The validity of his agreement was not dependent on the release of the company by the creditors. They could take advantage of his agreement made for their benefit, without releasing their claims. A consideration moving from them was not necessary to support the contract. Brown on Stat. of Frauds, Sec. 166 b; Eddy v. Roberts, 17 Ill. 505; Wilson v. Bevans, 58 Ill. 232; Meyer v. Hartman, 72 Ill. 442.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Windes

delivered the opinion of the court.

The finding of the court not being against the clear preponderance of the evidence, the judgment must stand, unless there was some error of law, as to which no question is made, except on the statute of frauds. It is contended that the statute of frauds prevents a recovery in this case, because the debt which appellant promised to pay was that of the transportation company—that his promise was not an original undertaking. This contention can not prevail. We have seen that the assets of the company were transferred to appellant. That was a sufficient consideration for his promise to pay the company’s debts. If he did not receive them that was his misfortune. The validity of his agreement was not dependent on the release of the company by the creditors. They could take advantage of his agreement made for their benefit, without releasing their claims. A consideration moving from them was not necessary to support the contract. Brown on Stat. of Frauds, Sec. 166 b; Eddy v. Roberts, 17 Ill. 505; Wilson v. Bevans, 58 Ill. 232; Meyer v. Hartman, 72 Ill. 442.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 Ill. App. 667, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothermel-v-bell-zoller-coal-co-illappct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack