Clayton v. Clark
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Lee county. . Appellant’s intestate instituted this suit seeking recovery on a promissory note for $2,789, less a credit of $1,000, against the appellees, the surviving makers of the note, and the executor of one of them who had died. The declaration itself showed that, upon payment of the $1,000 for which credit was given, by R. C. Clark, one of the makers, the note was surrendered to him by the payee. The defendants filed three pleas.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Lee county. . Appellant’s intestate instituted this suit seeking recovery on a promissory note for $2,789, less a credit of $1,000, against the appellees, the surviving makers of the note, and the executor of one of them who had died. The declaration itself showed that, upon payment of the $1,000 for which credit was given, by R. C. Clark, one of the makers, the note was surrendered to him by the payee. The defendants filed three pleas. By the first one it was averred that about the time of the maturity of the note the payee of the note transferred and assigned the…
1Concurrence
Whitfield, J.,
specially concurring.
In the notes to Cumber v. Wane, Smith’s Leading Cases, vol. 1, part 1, p. 602, it is said: “There is authority for saying that a liquidated demand, founded upon a bill of exchange or *511promissory note, even though overdue, may be forgiven by word of mouth; and if this be law, a fortiori, such a demand might be discharged by the payment of a less amount than that secured’by the note,” citing Foster v. Dowber, 6 Exch., 839. But it is said that this is not true, if the .debt be not evidenced by bill of exchange or promissory note. Ib. This is in the English…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Young v. PowerMississippi Supreme Court · 1866
- State v. StoryMississippi Supreme Court · 1880