Hilliard v. Noyes
Hilliard v. Noyes
Opinion of the Court
When a creditor relinquishes the residue of his claim upon being paid a part thereof, there must be some consideration for the relinquishment, or something to show the possibility of a benefit to the creditor; otherwise the agreement is only nudum pactum. Fitch v. Sutton, 5 East 230. But this rule is confined to a case of debt, or to a claim for a liquidated amount — Donohue v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 148, 150; and not to an agreement made in compromise of a doubtful claim on sufficient consideration — Tuttle v. Tuttle, 12 Met. 551; nor where the claim is for unliquidated damages — 2 Greenl. Ev., s. 28; Wilkinson v. Byers, 1 A. & E. 106. It was necessary that the parties should understand that the sum paid was in full, and the instructions given must have been so understood by the jury.
Exceptions overruled.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Hilliard v. Noyes & A.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published