§ 1077. Selling' liquor to minors.

Trustees of Columbia canal.. Trustees of Columbia canal. General Statutes, 1882.

218

218

805

220

392

Revised Statutes, 1893.

Lewis F. F. ABBOTT

V.

Valentine DOANE, Jr.

(163 Mass. 433.)

1. A note by a stockholder, director, and creditor of a corporation, given to

NOTE.-Performance of existing contract obligation

as consideration for new promise.

In its simplest form this question is free from difficulty, and the decisions upon it are harmonious. But when the further question is involved, as to how far a person may free himself from his contract obligation and make his old promise form the consideration for a new promise by his adversary, the subject becomes technical, and is attended with much difficulty; and the decisions dealing with it have not always dealt with the facts as they appeared in the case in reaching conclusions, so that conflict and uncertainty appear. A strict application of fundamental principles to the actual facts would remove much of this difficulty, and extend the rule governing the simpler forms of the subject into its more complex forms.

the maker of an accommodation note which the corporation had received the benefit of, in consideration of money furnished by the maker of the accommodation note to pay it, is not without consideration although the payee was bound to take up the other note.

2. The performance of a contract by a party who has hesitated or refused to

Payment of money presently due is not a consideration for a promise to give the debtor a quitclaim deed to land standing in the name of the creditor. Tucker v. Bartle, 85 Mo. 114.

A payment of an existing debt is not a consideration upon which a court of equity will enforce a promise to convey real estate. Smith v. Phillips, 77 Va. 548.

A promise to surrender a premium note which has been given to an insurance company upon payment of an assessment then due is without consideration. Sands v. Hill, 42 Barb, 651.

Payment of money already due is not a consideration for an agreement to attempt to collect the balance of the debt from other persons. Pemberton v. Hoosier, 1 Kan. 108.

In case of a claim of a balance due under a contract and for an additional amount for extras, an agreement to pay the balance due on the contract

And this rule extends universally through all the cases in which the simple question has arisen as to whether or not performance of an existing obligation is a consideration for a new promise by the other party.

So, performing the obligation of a mortgage contract is not a sufficient consideration for a new promise by one of the parties. Lukens's Appeal, 143 Pa. 386, 13 L. R. A. 581.

Payment of existing debt as consideration.

A large number of cases hold that payment of part of a debt already due is no consideration for a promise to release the remainder of the debt. Note to Fuller v. Kemp (N. Y.) 20 L. R. A. 785.

In Anonymous, 1 Vent. 258, it is said that a promise by a person to pay a sum of money which he owes is not a good consideration; but payment of a debt without suit is a good consideration.

No man can make his own wrong in withholding what he justly owes the foundation of a demand against his creditor. Keffer v. Grayson, 76 Va. 517. An engagement by a man to pay his own debts is no consideration for a promise to him by a third person. Jones v. Waite, 5 Bing. N. C. 341.

The payment by one of a debt clearly due does not constitute sufficient consideration for any kind of contract or agreement. No one can claim compensation for doing that which he is plainly and clearly bound by law to do. Swaggard v. Hancock, 25 Mo. App. 596.

is not founded on any consideration, since an agreement to pay that which a party has con- . tracted to pay does not constitute a consideration for a new promise to perform the same contract. Widiman v. Brown, 83 Mich. 241.

Payment of part of what is due on a judgment is not a consideration for a promise by the creditor to convey to the debtor land which he had received in part satisfaction of the original debt in addition to the satisfaction of the entire judgment. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Rink, 110 Ill. 538.

A promise by a creditor in consideration of the execution of a note by his debtor for a debt already due to supply him with goods in the future is without consideration. Overdeer v. Wiley, 30 Ala. 709. If interest is already payable on an overdue account, a positive agreement by the debtor to pay interest is not a sufficient consideration for an agreement by the creditor to give six months' notice of withdrawal before proceeding to collect the money. Orme v. Galloway, 9 Exch. 544, 2 C. L. Rep. 480, 23 L. J. Exch. N. S. 113 (1854).

A promise to take up notes on which the promisor is liable as indorser is not a valid consideration. Sherwin v. Brigham, 39 Ohio St. 137.

So, payment of a part of the amount due is no consideration for a promise to extend the time for payment of the residue. King v. State Bank, 9 Ark. 185, 47 Am. Dec. 739; Stone v. State Bank, 8 Ark. 145; Thompson v. Robinson, 34 Ark. 44; Liening v. Gould, 13 Cal. 598: State, Clark, D. & Co., v. Davenport, 12 Iowa, 335; Price v. Cannon, 3 Mo. 453;