Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Jones & S. 255

Feeter v. Weber

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided November 4, 1878

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1878-11-04

<p>I. Contracts.</p> <p>1. Promissory note.</p> <p>(a) Consideration, what sufficient.</p> <p>The settlement of a litigation is a sufficient consideration for notes given in pursuance of, and to effect, the settlement.</p> <p>H Settlement.</p> <p>1. Estoppel by.</p> <p>When parties to a litigation come to a settlement thereof, and one, pursuant to the settlement, and to carry it into effect, gives to the other bis promissory notes (such other complying with the terms of settlement on his part), he cannot, in an action on the notes, set up that Ms adversary in the litigation so settled had no legal cause of action against Mm, without showing fraudulent concealment of material facts which were not within his knowledge when he gave the notes.</p> <p>(a) Especially is this the case where the defendant in an action on the notes himself proves the settlement and compromise.</p>

Decided 1878-11-04

By the Court.—Speir, J.

¶1The main defense interposed on the trial was that the notes were given and executed without any consideration. It appears that a suit was pending in this court, brought by Mary A. L. Weber, executrix of Albert Weber, deceased, against Charles F. Weber, the maker of the, notes, for the recovery of certain goods, chattels and money supposed to belong to the estate of Albert Weber, deceased. That at the same time, certain proceedings were pending in the surrogate’s court in the matter of the estate of Albert Weber, deceased, in which she as executrix and legatee claimed as owner all the estate and assets belonging to him in his lifetime. These proceedings in the surrogate’s court and the suit in the superior court were compromised and discontinued on September 2, and the notes in suit are of the same date and *260were given in consideration of the settlement of the suit and the proceedings in the two courts. The defendant’s counsel furnished the. evidence on the trial of the discontinuance and settlement in both cases; He then offered to show that Mary A. L, Weber, executrix, &c., had no legal cause of action against Charles F. Weber, the defendant in said suit or proceedings.. The learned judge, very properly, we think, declined to try that issue. The settlement and compromise rested upon a good consideration. The counsel did not offer proof of any fraudulent concealment of material facts,, which were not within the knowledge of his client, who made the notes ; he was not therefore in a position to defeat a recovery-upon his promise to pay them. The defendant having himself furnished the evidence of settlement and compromise was estopped from setting up that the proceedings in the courts had no foundation in law.

¶2The claim that Charles F. Weber was under duress at the time he executed the notes and delivered them to Mary A. L. Weber, was clearly shown to be destitute of any foundation by defendant’s own- witness. Further notice of the point is unnecessary.

¶3The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

¶4Freedman, J., concurred.

/12/joness/255 · .json · Public domain