Hanson v. Crawford

• Citation: 109 S.W. 98,130 Mo.App. 232
• Parties: HANSON, Respondent, v. CRAWFORD, Appellant
• Decision Date: 31 March 1908
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

109 S.W. 98

130 Mo.App. 232

HANSON, Respondent, v. CRAWFORD, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

March 31, 1908

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court.--Hon. James T. Neville, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

G. A Watson for appellant.

It is the settled law of this State that an attorney at law, has no authority as such, to compromise any claim of his client for less than the full amount. It is equally well settled that an attorney, if empowered to do so, may make a settlement binding his client. Bay v. Trusdell, 92 Mo.App. 383. The court in holding that there was no consideration for this compromise agreement, evidently considered this an executory contract when, in fact, it was a thing done. The suit was settled; the money paid, and nothing left to be done except for Crawford to faithfully perform the balance of the compromise agreement, which the court found was done. This compromise should have been sustained. Woolman v. Loewen, 108 Mo.App. 581.

Delaney & Delaney for respondent.

An agreement to receive in payment a sum less than the amount presently due is without consideration, and such agreement or even the actual receipt and acceptance of the sum agreed upon in compromise, is no bar to a suit for the original debt or balance due on the original debt. Harnson v. Iron Works, 96 Mo.App. 348; Koerper v. Investment Co., 102 Mo.App. 543; Orr v. Sanford, 74 Mo.App. 187; Brewery Co. v. Schoedlan, 32 Mo.App 357; Haseltine v. Ausherman, 87 Mo. 410; Swaggard v. Hancock, 25 Mo.App. 596; Price v. Cannon, 3 Mo. 453; Willard v. Sumner, 7 Mo.App. 577; Willis v. Gammell, 67 Mo. 730.

NORTONI, J. Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur.

OPINION

NORTONI, J.

--This is a suit on a promissory note. Plaintiff recovered and defendant appealed. Plaintiff owned and held the note against defendant for many years. It amounted at the time this suit was instituted to about $ 1,300. He finally placed it in the hands of an attorney, authorizing him to compromise the same at $ 200, payable in installments of $ 50 each. The attorney instituted suit on the note and then entered into an agreement with the defendant whereby the defendant agreed to pay, and the plaintiff, through his attorney agreed to accept $ 200 in installments of $ 50 each in full for the indebtedness. Defendant paid the first installment of $ 50 thereon to the plaintiff's attorney, which he (the attorney) retained for the account of his client, the plaintiff. Plaintiff personally repudiated the agreement and refused to accept any payment thereon. The defendant tendered to plaintiff several fifty dollar installments thereafter as they became due under the agreement, but defendant says he refused to accept them. It was admitted that the defendant owed the note except for the agreement mentioned; that it was many years past due, and no consideration for the agreement other than above stated appears in the evidence. In fact, the only defense interposed against plaintiff's right to recover was the agreement above stated, whereby the plaintiff's duly authorized attorney agreed to accept $ 200 in full of the entire indebtedness and actually accepted $ 50 payment thereon. The court found the facts as above stated and declared as a matter of law thereon that there is no consideration to support the promise of the plaintiff to accept less than the amount of the debt, and therefore gave judgment against defendant for the amount due on the note. Vol. 6 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 377, says: "It is a familiar rule of law that an agreement between a debtor and a creditor whereby the latter agrees to discharge the former on payment of a less sum than the debt due is void for lack of consideration, and that the payment of the less sum operates only as a discharge pro tanto." The rule of law thus stated is highly technical and may work hardship in some cases. However that may be, it has since the early history of the State, been the rule of decision in Missouri, as will appear by consulting the following authorities: Price v. Cannon, 3 Mo. 318; Riley v. Kershaw, 52 Mo. 224; Klausmann Brew. Co. v. Schoenlau, 32...