Hanson v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 31 March 1908
• Parties: HANSON v. CRAWFORD.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

109 S.W. 98

130 Mo. App. 232

HANSON v. CRAWFORD.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 31, 1908.

1. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION — PART PAYMENT — CONSIDERATION.

A creditor's agreement to accept in discharge of a debt a sum less than the amount thereof is void for want of consideration, the debtor being entitled to a credit pro tanto for the amount paid under the agreement. The rule, however, does not affect the rule authorizing compositions with several creditors.

2. COMPOSITIONS WITH CREDITORS — CONSIDERATION — MUTUAL COVENANTS OF CREDITORS.

The mutual covenants between creditors, whereby each agrees to relinquish a part of his demand in order that by similar relinquishments of other creditors each may be made more nearly certain of the payment of the part not released, constitutes a sufficient consideration to sustain a composition agreement.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Jas. T. Neville, Judge.

Action by C. Hanson against A. B. Crawford. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

G. A. Watson, for appellant. A. S. Cowden and T. J. Delaney, for respondent.

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 $50 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. 6 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d 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...