43 Mo. App. 139 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1891
All the instructions offered by defendant were refused. It will be observed that the statement of plaintiff’s cause of action is not well drawn; that it
The statute of frauds is, however, interposed. But we think it is not applicable. Here the promise to pay Hamilton’s debt is made in consideration of a benefit accruing directly to the promisor. The payment of Hamilton’s debt is not promised for Hamilton’s sake, but for a purpose of, and a benefit to, Sterritt & Hillyer. The payment of Hamilton’s debt is really an incident to the main purpose. Walther v. Merrill, 6 Mo. App. 370; Calkins v. Chandler, 36 Mich. 324; Clifford v. Luhring, 69 Ill. 401; Crawford v. Edison, 45 Ohio St. 239.
II. This promise was made by defendant’s partner and we will concede the proposition that one partner
The foregoing view perhaps disposes of all refused instructions offered by defendant. We have examined them in detail, and fail to discover any error affecting the merits of the case, and affirm the judgment.