Baits v. Peters

9 U.S. 556
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Baits v. Peters. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 U.S. 556
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 20, 1824·Published

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice. Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court, that the third plea was bad. The agreement stated in that plea, although under seal, did not operate as an extinguishment of the simple contract debt. The agreement was but a collateral undertaking, to come to a settlement within a limited period, which had elapsed before the commencement of the suit, and to pay the balance found due upon suich settlements There was no averment in the. plea that any such settlement had been had, under that agreement, and, consequently, the covenant to pay the balance, did not appear to have attached upon the demand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baits v. Peters, 9 U.S. 556 (1824).

9 U.S. 556 (Baits v. Peters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.