Baker v. Hunt
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court. — IIon. E. L. Edwards, Judge. (1) The payment of a less amount than the sum really due is no discharge of the debt. -Nor will such payment of a part of the real debt constitute a sufficient consideration for a promise to cancel or discharge the remainder. Riley r. Kershaw, 52 Mo. 224; Price v: Cannon, 3 Mo. 318; 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court. — IIon. E. L. Edwards, Judge. (1) The payment of a less amount than the sum really due is no discharge of the debt. -Nor will such payment of a part of the real debt constitute a sufficient consideration for a promise to cancel or discharge the remainder. Riley r. Kershaw, 52 Mo. 224; Price v: Cannon, 3 Mo. 318; 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst. (2 Ed.) p, 284, sec. 1289'; Otto v. Klauber, 23 Wis. 471. “ An express agreement, even to accept a smaller sum for a greater, legally due, will not, without more, bar a recovery for the balance.” Myers v. Byington, 34 Iowa, 205 ;…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
Action on two promissory notes. Defence to the action based on two similar papers signed by the intestate in the following form:
“ Pisg-ai-i, Mo., December 8, 1877.
“In consideration of the one dollar to me in hand paid by William B. Hunt, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I the undersigned hereby agree to re*409lease William B. Hunt from any further liability incurred. by him on account of said William B. Hunt having signed a promissory note conjointly with Jonathan Hunt, David A. Jones and Daniel Hunt for the sum of seven hundred dollars. Said note was dated October 30, 1867, payable…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Willis v. GammillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- McAllister v. DenninSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
3Cited by1 opinion
- Monett State Bank v. RathersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1927