Cutter v. Cochrane

116 Mass. 408, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 129
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided December 28, 1874·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Ames, J.

Whether by her failure to make the stipulated payments the plaintiff had lost all hei rights under the original con[410]*410tract, and forfeited the money which she had paid, is a question which the defendant is not entitled to raise in this case. The settlement which was had between the parties proceeded upon a very different ground. An agreement to rescind a previous contract imports that, until it is rescinded, it is recognized by both parties as subsisting and binding. The rescinding of a previous contract containing "mutual stipulations is a release by each party to the other. The release by one is the consideration for the release by the other, and the mutual releases form the consideration for the new promise, and are sufficient to give it full legal effect. The defendant is bound to account for the money that has been paid to him, not because the purchase did not go into effect, but because, in consideration of mutual releases, he has excused the plaintiff from its fulfilment, has consented to a new agreement, and has expressly promised to account for the money.

."Exceptions sustained.

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

Cutter v. Cochrane, 116 Mass. 408, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 129 (Mass. 1874).

116 Mass. 408 (Cutter v. Cochrane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Swartz v. Lieberman
80 N.E.2d 5 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Zlotnick v. McNamara
16 N.E.2d 632 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Torrey v. Adams
254 Mass. 22 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Flaherty v. Goldinger
144 N.E. 374 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Tuttle v. Metz Co.
229 Mass. 272 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Hanson & Parker, Ltd. v. Wittenberg
91 N.E. 383 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Dunbar v. Dunbar
62 N.E. 248 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Devine v. Murphy
46 N.E. 1066 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
O.P.R.R. Co. v. . Forrest
28 N.E. 137 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Oregon Pacific Railroad v. Forrest
128 N.Y. 83 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Rollins v. Marsh
128 Mass. 116 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)