Martin Lewis & Co. v. Simons
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
Demurrer to petition. The facts set forth in the petition, are, that in September 1851, the defendant being indebted to the plaintiffs on three promissory notes, and a book account for goods sold, amounting in all to $2,444.89, before the maturity of one of the notes, for $783.42, being in insolvent circumstances, proposed to pay the plaintiffs 50 per cent of the debt, in full of the entire demand — which proposition was accepted; the money paid; a receipt given by the…
Read the full summary
Demurrer to petition. The facts set forth in the petition, are, that in September 1851, the defendant being indebted to the plaintiffs on three promissory notes, and a book account for goods sold, amounting in all to $2,444.89, before the maturity of one of the notes, for $783.42, being in insolvent circumstances, proposed to pay the plaintiffs 50 per cent of the debt, in full of the entire demand — which proposition was accepted; the money paid; a receipt given by the plaintiffs acknowledging full payment of the notes, and the notes given up. In January last the plaintiffs met the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
There is no doubt, that the promise of the defendant is without consideration, and therefore void, unless the fact of the preceding indebtedness, from which he was discharged by the act of the plaintiffs, can be set up as still subsisting in foro conscientiae, and thereby constitute a valid foundation for the new promises.
The question, thus presented, is one which has been much considered and variously decided. All the earlier cases hold in general terms, that a moral obligation is a sufficient consideration for an express promise. And Chief Justice Mansfield, in Merrill v. Gibbs, 3 Farm.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Snevily v. ReadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Warren v. WhitneySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1845