Leeson v. Anderson

Citation99 Mich. 247,58 N.W. 72
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Decision Date06 March 1894
PartiesLEESON v. ANDERSON.

Error to circuit court, Grand Traverse county; J. G. Ramsdell Judge.

Action by John Leeson against Humphrey B. Anderson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Sawyer & Bishop, for appellant.

Pratt &amp Davis, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

This case presents the question of whether the acceptance, by the holder of a promissory note past due, of a less sum than the face of the note, with an agreement to discharge the debt operates to fully release the debtor. We are constrained to hold that it does not. The debtor, in paying a portion, only, of the debt, when he is bound to pay the whole, furnishes no consideration for a promise by the creditor to discharge him, and such payment is treated in law as a payment pro tanto only. See 2 Daniel, Neg. Inst. � 1289 and cases cited. See, also, Harrison v. Close, 2 Johns. 448; Ryan v. Ward, 48 N.Y. 206; Bridge Co. v. Murphy, 13 Kan. 40; Smith v Schulenberg, 34 Wis. 46; Wheeler v. Wheeler, 11 Vt. 66; Bailey v. Day, 26 Me. 88; Bright v. Coffman, 15 Ind. 371; Headley v. Hackley, 50 Mich. 45, 14 N.W. 693. See, also, note to Cumber v. Wane, 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. 595 et seq. The result is different if payment is made in compromise of a claim over which there is an honest dispute, or by general composition with creditors, or if the payment be in something other than money. It was contended in the present case that, before suit was brought for the portion remaining unpaid, the plaintiff should have tendered back the amount received, and thus repudiated the settlement; and defendant's counsel cite Pangborn v. Insurance Co., 67 Mich. 683, 35 N.W. 814, as sustaining this contention. But in that case the plaintiff's only ground for setting aside the settlement was that it was effected by fraud. If there had been no fraud, the settlement was admittedly valid, and effectual to discharge the debt. Such was also the case in Jewett v. Petit, 4 Mich. 508. The settlement, but for the alleged fraud, was good and valid, and it was held that the plaintiff was bound to rescind this transaction before he could treat it as a nullity. But such is not the case here. No fraud was practiced. The defendant has simply failed to pay the amount which he owed, and, under the authorities cited, this was payment pro tanto, leaving the remainder unpaid. The defendant, by paying a portion of his indebtedness, has not been induced to part with any money which, by the obligation of his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Western Union Telegraph Company v. Arkadelphia Milling Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1923
  • Leeson v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1894
    ...99 Mich. 24758 N.W. 72LEESONv.ANDERSON.Supreme Court of Michigan.March 6, Error to circuit court, Grand Traverse county; J. G. Ramsdell, Judge. Action by John Leeson against Humphrey B. Anderson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed. [58 N.W. 72] Sawyer & Bishop, for......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT