34 Minn. 277 | Minn. | 1885
The court found the facts to be that the defendant contracted to pay the plaintiffs $200, ($50 of which was afterwards
The appellant contends that the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is erroneous, for the reason that the contract was so modified that the plaintiffs’ right to compensation depended upon the performance of the contract made with Peake. The fact, however, of such a modification of the contract does not appear. It is not found by the court, nor does it follow as a legal result from what is found, viz., that the plaintiffs “told defendant” as above recited. This promise or statement was made after the contract had been entered into, and the plaintiffs, as is found, “had then done and completed all that was required of them under their contract with defendant.” So far as appears, the promise was a mere naked agreement without consideration, and could have no legal effect.
There is no merit in the point that the court found some facts not alleged in the pleadings.
Judgment affirmed.