Hindert v. Schneider
| Decision Date | 30 June 1879 |
| Citation | 4 Ill.App. 203,4 Bradw. 203 |
| Parties | SALOME HINDERTv.GEORGE SCHNEIDER. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. JOHN BURNS, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed July 16, 1879.
Messrs. CHITTY, CASSELL & GIBSON, and Mr. M. L. NEWELL, for appellant; that the notes given in evidence made a prima facie case and cast the burden of disproving them upon the defendant, cited Stacker v. Watson, 1 Scam. 207; Delahay v. Clement, 2 Scam. 575; Mitchell v. Sheldon, 2 Black. 185; Eich v. Sievers, 73 Ill. 194; Topper v. Snow, 20 Ill. 434; Russell v. Cook, 3 Hill 505; Pixley v. Boynton, 79 Ill. 351; Watt v. Kirby, 15 Ill. 200; Union Nat. Bank v. Baldenwick, 45 Ill. 375; Bonnell v. Wilder, 67 Ill. 327; Broughton v. Smart, 59 Ill. 440.
The consideration need not be adequate in point of value: 1 Chitty on Contracts, 29; 1 Wait's Actions and Defenses, 93; Buchanan v. International Bank, 78 Ill. 500.
The compromise of a disputed claim is a sufficient consideration for a contract: 1 Chitty on Contracts, 29; 1 Wait's Actions and Defenses, 95; Scott v. Warner, 2 Laws. 49; Stewart v. Shuenfedt, 4 Denio, 189; Farmers' Bank v. Blair, 44 Barb. 641; Russell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 504; Keefe v. Vogel, 36 Iowa, 87; Donner v. Church, 44 N. Y. 647; Seaman v. Seaman, 12 Wend. 381; Palmer v. North, 35 Barb. 282; Bedell v. Bedell, 3 Hun. 580; Hill v. Buckminster, 5 Pick. 393; Pitkin v. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294; McKinley v. Watkins, 13 Ill. 140; Miller v. Hawker, 66 Ill. 185; Husband v. Epling, 81 Ill. 172; Taylor v. Patrick, 1 Bibb. 168; Longridge v. Dorville, 5 B. & Ald. 117; Honeyman v. Jarvis, 79 Ill. 318; Stapleton v. Stapleton, 1 Atk. 12.
Where a verdict is palpably against the weight of evidence it should be set aside: Scott v. Blumb, 2 Gilm. 595; Lowry v. Orr, 1 Gilm. 70; Keaggy v. Hite, 12 Ill. 99; Baker v. Pritchett, 16 Ill. 66; Gordon v. Bullock, 11 Ill. 142.
Messrs. BARNES & MUIR, for appellee; that a new trial will not be granted on the ground that the evidence is conflicting, cited Pres. Church v. Emerson, 66 Ill. 269; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 87 Ill. 454; Guerdon v. Corbett, 87 Ill. 272.
This suit was brought to recover on two promissory notes for $333.33 each, made by appellee, payable to appellant, dated Nov. 8, 1875, due in two and three years from date. Appellee pleaded want of consideration, setting up that appellant procured the notes by threatening appellee that she would proceed to contest her father's will unless defendant would make and deliver to her his notes for the sum of $1,500.
That appellant knew she had no claim, and made the threats to harass him and induce him to make and deliver the notes, and that in consequence of such threats he executed the notes.
It appears from the evidence in the case that George J. Schneider, father of appellant and appellee, died in January, 1870; that his will was admitted to probate February, 1870. The will gave to appellant $300, and appellee the farm and improvements, worth $5,000. This was about all there was of the estate.
The appellant, not being satisfied with the will, employed counsel to institute proceedings to have the will annulled. Her attorney, Newell, undertook the case, procured a copy of the will, examined it and obtained such information and evidence as fully satisfied him that it could be successfully contested. This was in 1870. He reported this to appellant, and she instructed him to take the necessary steps to institute suit. He had prepared a draft of a bill for that purpose when appellant's husband reported to her attorney that they had settled, and to go no further.
As to what this settlement was there is some little conflict in the evidence.
August Hindert, husband of appellant, testified that he saw appellee in May, 1870; his wife was not satisfied with the will; they talked the matter over appellee said he would do something, but they did not agree on a price; he saw several lawyers and one Newell, whom he employed to contest the will; he told his wife what Newell said about the validity of the will; she said if he, appellee, would settle, she would not go to law; at last he consented to pay $2,000, including the $300 willed to her; he paid the $300 in June, 1872, at Minonk; the defendant said he would not give his notes, but would pay the money, which he could do without giving the notes, when he got it; my wife wanted notes; defendant finally said he would pay the $2,000 in four or five years, when he got able; my wife concluded to let it go at that.
J. G. Hindert, father of August, testified to the same in substance. Defendant said Dent told him not to give the notes. In opposition to this testimony, the appellee alone testifies:
Following this, at about the expiration of five years from the date of that first negotiation, the appellee, with full knowledge of all his rights and all the facts, had a complete settlement of the matter with appellant, and after deducting the three hundred dollars he had paid, and two hundred dollars he had paid on account for grain, gave his notes for fifteen hundred dollars, the two notes sued on being a portion of the notes.
It seems that the notes were given in final settlement of the balance of the amount promised in 1870, according to appellant's claim, which was voluntarily yielded to by appellee with full information of all the facts.
If, as claimed by appellant, there was such a settlement of the will controversy under the circumstances, as shown by the evidence, the contract would be binding without the giving of the notes, there being nothing in the evidence to show bad faith on the part of appellant, or that her claim was without merits.
If this was...
To continue reading
Request your trial