Townsend v. Fenton
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Mitchell
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Missouri
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Mother's wrongful death action against employer for son killed in workplace elevator accident was properly non-suited; court held the alleged construction defect was at most a remote cause and the proximate cause was the operator's reversal of the elevator, which was not pleaded as negligence.
Excerpt
After the decision of this court (30 Minn. 528) holding the complaint insufficient, the cause was remanded to the district court for Murray county, and plaintiff served an amended complaint, in substance as follows: The defendant is owner in fee of a described quarter-section of land. On January 20, 1881, the defendant was indebted to one Darms in a sum exceeding $1,866.70, and on that day, for part of the debt, executed and delivered to Darms his promissory note payable two years thereafter, with interest at 10 per cent. On November 30, 1881, plaintiff, defendant and Darms made an oral agreement to the following effect: Darms agreed to pay defendant $100 for entering into the agreement, and paid him $65 on account, and at plaintiff’s request and for his account, sold and transferred the above described note, without recourse, to J. G. Townsend, plaintiff’s son, and also released defendant from the residue of the debt and from all demands of Darms against him. In consideration of which, the defendant agreed that as soon as he should make final proof of his claim to the land, (which he had entered under the homestead laws of the United States,) and on surrender to him of his note, he would convey the land in fee-simple to the plaintiff. And in consideration of the premises the plaintiff paid Darms the face of the note and interest, and accepted the transfer without recourse, and agreed that on conveyance of the land he would deliver the note to the defendant. At the time of this contract, the defendant was, and was known ”by Darms and plaintiff to be insolvent, and plaintiff was induced to make the agreement, accept the transfer without recourse, and make the payment to Darms, relying on the defendant’s promise to pay the note by a conveyance of the land, and would not otherwise have taken the note or made the payment. The land is not worth more than $1,200; the defendant is still insolvent; the land, being a United ■States homestead, is not liable for paym
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.