Eakin v. Fenton
Eakin v. Fenton, Administrator of Fenton
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
One partner bought out his co-partner, for a certain price. Afterward, he alleged that the purchase was made under a mistake of the true state of the partnership accounts, and claimed that he should be allowed a certain sum by the partner selling. There was no fraud. The partner promised to pay the sum, and is now sued on the promise. He denies there was any consideration for it.
Abey v. Bennett, 10 Ind. 478 , and Spahr v. Hollingshead, 8 Blackf. 415 , decide that there was no legal consideration: and Wiggins v. Keizer, 6 Ind. 252 , decides that a moral one •is insufficient.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.