Bartlett v. Woodworth-Mason Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. Pacts agreed. In 1894, the defendants, being in failing circumstances, offered in settlement eighty per cent of their indebtedness, payable in notes upon two, four, six, and eight months’ time, and represented that they would be able to pay the notes as they became due. All their creditors agreed to this arrangement, and, as a part of the settlement, some of them having attachments upon the debtors’ property released the same.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Pacts agreed. In 1894, the defendants, being in failing circumstances, offered in settlement eighty per cent of their indebtedness, payable in notes upon two, four, six, and eight months’ time, and represented that they would be able to pay the notes as they became due. All their creditors agreed to this arrangement, and, as a part of the settlement, some of them having attachments upon the debtors’ property released the same. The defendants did not pay the first notes when due, and the plaintiffs seek to recover their original debt.
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.
The agreement among the creditors and with the debtors was a sufficient consideration for the promise to take a percentage. Browne v. Stackpole, 9 N. H. 478.
The plaintiffs claim that the acceptance of the offer was conditional,— that it was to be binding only in the event that the composition notes were paid when due; but the case finds that they agreed to take eighty per cent, payable in notes. In this state a note is not payment when there is no agreement that it shall he. Gilman v. Stevens, 63 N. H. 342; Moore v. Fitz, 59 N. H. 572, and cases cited. But this rule does not control the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnson v. DooleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
3Cited by3 opinions
- Smoot v. CheckettsUtah Supreme Court · 1912
- State v. ShevlinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1923
- In re Plaza Music Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1934