Wesson v. Horner
This text of 25 Mo. 81 (Wesson v. Horner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The agreement set up in the defendants’ answer amounts to no defence to the plaintiffs’ action. There is not the [83]*83slightest consideration set forth or mentioned moving to plaintiffs for any such promise or agreement; it is a mere nudum pactum. The agreement is uncertain and entirely too indefinite even if there was a consideration to support it. The defendants do not promise to do any thing for the plaintiffs’ benefit. It seems to us tó be a mere sliam answer. There is no defence to plaintiffs’ action set forth in the answer. The promise, if any was made, seems by the manner of stating it to have been made, not to defendants, but to the other creditors of the defendants. There is nothing in this case. The judgment must be affirmed; the other judges concurring.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 Mo. 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wesson-v-horner-mo-1857.