De Mars v. Musser-Sauntry Land, L. & Manuf'g Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1887
• Citation: 35 N.W. 1,37 Minn. 418
• Parties: DE MARS v MUSSER-SAUNTRY LAND, L. & MANUF'G CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

37 Minn. 418

35 N.W. 1

DE MARSvMUSSER-SAUNTRY LAND, L. & MANUF'G CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 8, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

To constitute a good consideration for the compromise of a disputed claim, it is not necessary that the matter in dispute should be really doubtful in fact, provided the parties bona fide considered it so But there must have been in fact a dispute or doubt as to the rights of the parties honestly entertained. A party cannot create a dispute sufficient as a consideration for a compromise, by merely refusing to pay an undisputed claim.

Appeal from municipal court of Stillwater; NETHAWAY, Judge.

Searles, Ewing & Gail, for De Mars, respondent.

Clapp & Macartney, for Musser-Sauntry Land, L. & Manuf'g Co., appellant.

MITCHELL, J.

Action to recover for work performed for defendant in a logging camp. There being no evidence that any special time of payment was fixed in the contract, plaintiff's wages would be payable upon demand any time after the services were performed. But, by way of defense, the defendant alleges that after the work was completed the parties had a disagreement as to the terms of payment under the contract, and that thereupon they had a settlement of their dispute, by the terms of which $67.26 of plaintiff's account should become due at once, and the balance of $200 in 60 days after the logs on which the work was performed should arrive in the St. Croix boom; and that defendant paid plaintiff the $67.26, in cash, and gave him a due-bill for the balance, payable according to the terms of their settlement, which plaintiff accepted in full settlement of his claim, and that the logs had not arrived in the St. Croix boom. The court below found that there was no consideration for this alleged settlement, and the only question presented on this appeal is whether this is sustained by the evidence.

The defendant is entirely right in his law that the compromise of a disputed or doubtful claim is in itself a good consideration, and that no investigation into the character or value of the claims submitted will be gone into for the purpose of setting aside a compromise honestly made. It is sufficient if the parties entering into it thought at the time that there was a question between them. It is not even necessary that the question in dispute should be really doubtful, if the parties bona fide considered it so. The real consideration which each party receives under a compromise is not the...