Hilliard v. Noyes

58 N.H. 312
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1878·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Smith, J.

When a creditor relinquishes the residue of his claim upon being paid a part thereof, there must be some consideration for the relinquishment, or something to show the possibility of a benefit to the creditor; otherwise the agreement is only nudum pactum. Fitch v. Sutton, 5 East 230. But this rule is confined to a case of debt, or to a claim for a liquidated amount — Donohue v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 148, 150; and not to an agreement made in compromise of a doubtful claim on sufficient consideration — Tuttle v. Tuttle, 12 Met. 551; nor where the claim is for unliquidated damages — 2 Greenl. Ev., s. 28; Wilkinson v. Byers, 1 A. & E. 106. It was necessary that the parties should understand that the sum paid was in full, and the instructions given must have been so understood by the jury.

Exceptions overruled.

Stanley and Bingham, JJ., did not sit.

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

Hilliard v. Noyes, 58 N.H. 312 (N.H. 1878).

58 N.H. 312 (Hilliard v. Noyes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jersey Island Dredging Co. v. Whitney
86 P. 509 (California Supreme Court, 1906)