91 Mo. App. 294 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1902
— This action is on an account and was begun before a justice of the peace, where plaintiff had judgment. Plaintiff again had judgment in the circuit court, whence the case was taken by defendants.
It appears that plaintiff, desiring to borrow money and to secure the payment thereof on his fifty-acre farm, applied for the loan to defendants who were agents of one Henley,
But it is said that the defendants’ promise to pay the $75 was a promise to pay the debt of Henley for whom they were making the loan, and not being in writing is void under the statute of frauds. Plaintiff properly answers this by the statement that the undertaking by defendants was for themselves and that the promise was to pay their own debt, in which case, of course, it need not be in writing.
The record discloses that the contract to hold the $75 until the improvements were completed was made by these defendants. The money was in their name and that part paid to this plaintiff at the consummation of the loan was paid to
We are satisfied that no cause exists for reversal and the judgment is affirmed.