Metzger v. Childs
METZGER & BEACH v. O. W. and M. W. CHILDS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- E. W. McKinstry (author), Richard W. Rhodes, Niles
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — McKinstry
McKINSTRY, J.
— The contract, so far as it authorized the purchase of the outstanding claims against the plaintiffs, was executed by the defendants. No creditor of the plaintiffs is interested in the result of this controversy, and no principle of .public policy required the court below to dismiss the action.
The contract alleged was an entire contract, and proof of the fact that the defendants surrendered the possession of the sheep, which constituted their security, before a full compliance with their promise to buy up the outstanding indebtedness, was not a material variance from the terms of the contract alleged.
Judgment affirmed.
We concur: Niles, J.; Rhodes, J.