Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1892

Brown v. Farnham

Brown v. Farnham
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 3, 1892 · Vanderburgh
48 Minn. 317; 51 N.W. 377; 1892 Minn. LEXIS 413 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Geo. R. Robinson, for appellant., Jackson d Atwater, for respondent.-

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1893, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Brown v. Farnham

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Vanderburgh, J.

The mutual agreement, under seal, entered into by the defendant with his creditors, including the plaintiff, which is set forth in the record, and under which he agreed to surrender and transfer certain property to the trustee therein named, to be disposed of and divided among such creditors in satisfaction and discharge of their claims, is a valid composition deed, and a bar to this action. The cause of action on the note sued on is superseded by the new agreement, and the plaintiff’s rights and remedies must be determined by it. The reason of this is apparent. The composition deed is an agreement between the creditors and the defendant, which involves rights and interests common to all the creditors who join in it. It is an agreement that each shall receive the amount or consideration stipulated for, and nothing more, as the basis of the debtor’s discharge from the debts due to such creditors. Each creditor must be presumed to act on the faith of the engagement of the others, and the beneficial consideration to each is the obligation of the rest to forbear; and the debtor secures to them a common fund-for the benefit of all, so that all are mutually *319bound; and there is a consideration as between themselves, of which the debtor is also entitled to avail himself. White v. Kuntz, 107 N. Y. 518, (14 N. E. Rep. 423,) and cases; Perkins v. Lockwood, 100 Mass. 249; Good v. Cheesman, 2 Barn. & Adol. 328; Goodrich v. Stanley, 24 Conn. 613, 621.

Judgment affirmed.

(Opinion published 51 N. W. Rep. 377.)

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.