Opinion

Nelson v. Hudson

  • 221 Mo. App. 211
  • 299 S.W. 1111
  • 1927 Mo. App. LEXIS 92
Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Filed
Dec 6, 1927
Status
Published
On the bench
Becker, Danes, Daues, Nipper, Sutton
Cited by
15 cases
Authority
More cited than 40.8%

The opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

Plaintiff, on motion for rehearing, insists that our opinion in this case is in conflict with the decision of the Kansas City Court of Appeals in Engle v. Brown, 202 Mo. App. 345 , 216 S.W. 541 . It is true that our opinion is not in accord with the decision in that case, but it is in accord with the decision of that court in the later case of Central Missouri Trust Co. v. Taylor, 289 S.W. 658 , which, we think, repudiates the ruling in the former case.

It is manifest that our statute, requiring a renunciation to be in writing, is not concerned with a release or discharge, by novation, or by any other contract or agreement founded upon a valuable consideration. Renunciation imports the gratuitous abandonment or giving up of a right. It does not import a release or discharge for a valuable consideration. [Leask v. Dew, 92 N.Y.S. 891 ; Wekett v. Raby, 2 Brown's House of Lords Rep., 386; Dimon v. Keery, 66 N.Y.S. 817 .]

The Commissioner recommends that plaintiff's motion for rehearing be overruled.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.