Leeson v. Anderson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Grand Traverse. (Bamsdell, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are; stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
This case presents the question of' whether the acceptance, by the holder of a prbmissorynote past due, of a less sum than the face of the note, with' an agreement to discharge the debt, operates to release *248fully the debtor. We are constrained to hold that it does .not. The debtor, in paying a portion, only, of the debt, when he is bound to pay the whole, furnishes no consideration for a promise by the creditor to discharge him, and such payment is treated in law as a payment pro tanto only. See 2 Daniel, Neg. Inst. § 1289, and cases cited. See, also, Harrison v. Close, 2 Johns. 448; Ryan v.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pangborn v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Smith v. SchulenbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Headley v. HackleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Bright v. CoffmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1860
- Bailey v. DaySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1846
3Cited by11 opinions
- Adell Broadcasting Corp. v. Apex Media Sales, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2006
- Goldsmith v. LichtenbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Cochran v. National Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Puffer v. State Mutual Rodded Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
- Aston v. ElkowMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.