Columbia Law Review Volume 16

Columbia Law Review Volume 16

By (author) 

List price: US$11.90

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ...(N. Y. 1843) 10 Paige 465. A number of jurisdictions have carried the beneficiary theory to its full extent and allowed a recovery whether the grantor of the defendant was personally liable or not. Crone V. Stinde (1900) 156 M0. 262, 55 S. W. 863, 56 S. W. 907, overruling Hicks V. Hamilton (1898) 144 M0. 495, 46 S. W. 432; Hare v. Murphy (1895) 45 Neb. 809, 64 N. W. 211; McKay V. Ward (1899) 20 Utah 149, 57 Pac. 1024; Bay V. Williams (1884) 112 Ill. 91, 1 N. E. 340. It has been suggested that there is no consideration for the promise in such a case, see dissenting opinion in McKay V. Ward, supra; Brewer V. Maurer (1883) 38 Ohio St. 543, but the grant to the promisor is ample consideration, although it is certainly open to the objection that it does not move from the promisee. The limitations put upon the beneficiaries' right of recovery in Vrooman V. Turner (1877) 69 N. Y. 280, have been extensively followed in this class of cases, and it may safely be said that the principal case represents a minority of courts in giving unde served relief in a case where a theory that the courts as a general rule are anxious to limit, must be applied. Morris V. Mia: (1896) 4 Kan. App. 654, 46 Pac. 58; Ward V. DeOca (1898) 120 Cal. 102, 52 Pac. 130; Y. M. C. A. V. Croft (1898) 34 Ore. 106, 55 Pac. 439; see Wood V. Johnson (1912) 117 Min. 267, 135 N. W. 746; see 15 Harvard MUMCIPAL CORPORATIONS---0RDlNANCES--CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.----The defendant contested the validity of an ordinance that fixed a higher standard of food value for milk sold within the city than the general state law required, and fixed a more severe penalty for violations. Held, the ordinance was not in conflict with the State law, and was valid. Kansas City V. H enre (Kan. 1915)...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 352 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 19mm | 630g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236759990
  • 9781236759993