EDSON V. POPPE
124 N.W. 441 (1910)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Poppe (D), landowner, appealed a judgment in favor of Edson (P),
tenant, in P's action to recover from D under an oral contract.
FACTS: D owned property that was rented to P. In 1904 P, at the instance and request of
D, drilled and dug a well for water. The reasonable value of the digging and casing was
$250. The well was a valuable improvement upon the premises. On or about the 5th day of
August, 1905, D, after having examined the said well, and in consideration of the said well
to him, and of the improvement it made upon said premises, expressly ratified the acts of
his said tenant in having said well drilled, and then and there promised and agreed to pay P
the reasonable value of the digging and casing. D has since refused, and still refuses. to
pay P anything. P sued D. D objected to the introduction of any evidence, for the reason
that the complaint did not state a cause of action, in that the consideration alleged in the
contract is a past consideration, and no consideration for any promise, if any was made, and
no consideration for the promise alleged. D was overruled, and D excepted. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment