Neibles v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1887
• Citation: 37 Minn. 151,33 N.W. 332
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: NEIBLES v MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. Co.

37 Minn. 151

33 N.W. 332

NEIBLESvMINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 16, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Upon an asserted claim for damages, unliquidated in amount, resulting from the alleged negligent destruction of property, the claim being made in good faith, and upon grounds reasonably inducing the belief that it is enforceable, an agreement on the one hand to pay a specified sum, less than the alleged value of the property, and an agreement by the other party to accept that in full satisfaction, constitutes a valid contract.

Evidence that one had acted for two or three years as an agent for a corporation, settling its obligations, is sufficient to establish prima facie the fact of and authorize agency.

Appeal from district court, Le Sueur county.

M. R. Everett and F. Cadwell, for Neibles. respondent.

B. S. Lewis, for Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., appellant.

DICKINSON, J.

This action was commenced in a justice's court. The complaint sets forth a cause of action in the breach of a contract, compromising an unliquidated demand of the plaintiff against the defendant, for the negligent killing of the plaintiff's horse. The complaint alleges the negligence; the killing of the horse thereby; that the horse was of the value of $90; a mutual agreement, “as a compromise settlement and adjustment of the damages,” to pay on the one part, and on the other to accept in full payment, a stated sum, less than the alleged value of the horse; and a breach of the defendant's agreement to make such payment. It was not necessary, in order to make valid the contract, that the claim compromised be one which could have been successfully maintained. It was enough that the claim was asserted in good faith, and upon reasonable grounds, inducing the belief that it was enforceable: Perkins v. Trinka, 30 Minn. 241,15 N. W. Rep. 115; Callisher v. Bischoffsheim, L. R. 5 Q. B. 449; Kerr v. Lucas, 1 Allen, 279; Russell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 504.

The complaint shows, not merely a claim of a right to recover for the defendant's negligence, but a good cause of action therefor. It is true that the complaint does not allege that the defendant disputed its liability; but, even though there was no controversy as to the defendants being liable, a sufficient consideration to support the agreement appears from the fact that the plaintiff's asserted right of recovery was of an unliquidated nature. Wilkinson v. Byers, 1 Adol, & E. 106, 113; 1 Suth. Dam. 430.

...