Legal Opinion

Leeson v. Anderson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1894PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Pangborn v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Smith v. SchulenbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
  3. Headley v. HackleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Bright v. CoffmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1860
  5. Bailey v. DaySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1846

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Adell Broadcasting Corp. v. Apex Media Sales, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2006
  2. Goldsmith v. LichtenbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Cochran v. National Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Puffer v. State Mutual Rodded Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Aston v. ElkowMichigan Supreme Court · 1937

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API