Peterson v. Wheeler
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Sixth District Court. I. Any collateral agreement between the parties to the suit,, which is not executed, is no defense to the notes sued on, and an acceptance of the performance of such agreement by plaintiff is-necessary to its existence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sixth District Court. I. Any collateral agreement between the parties to the suit,, which is not executed, is no defense to the notes sued on, and an acceptance of the performance of such agreement by plaintiff is-necessary to its existence. (3 Blackst. 15, and notes; 2 Parson Cont. 681; Chitty on Cont. 760 ; 2 Starkie onEv. 15; 2 T. R. 24; Edw. on Bills, 579 ; 23 Wend. 343 ; 19 Wend. 408-516 ; 6 Wend. 390 ; 16 Johns. 86 ; 5 Johns. 386.) H. There was no release nor good accord and satisfaction set up in defendant’s answer. (5 East. 230; 26 Maine, 88; Edw. on Bills, 538 ; Story on…
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
The plaintiffs sue on five promissory notes aggregating $285, exclusive of interest. The defendant alleges substantially, in the way of defense, that he accounted with the plaintiffs concerning these notes and the payments thereon, and that, upon such accounting, it ivas found that he OAYed them $250; that he thereupon paid $50, and promised to pay the balance on request; that such accounting was in full satisfaction of said notes, and that it was so accepted at the time by the plaintiffs. The fifty dollar payment and a promise to trade with the plaintiffs for the three next ensuing years are…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brooklyn Bank v. De GrauwNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by2 opinions
- Collins v. GaskillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Elliott v. ThomasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914