Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Mass. 424

Eaton v. Lincoln

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1816

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1816-10-15

Assumpsit on a promissory note for $70.82, made by the defendant, payable to the plaintiff or his order on demand with interest, dated September 1, 1808. The action was commenced on the 8th of April, 1814. The cause was submitted to the decision of the Court, upon - a statement of facts agreed by the parties.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1816-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 1900

13 state decisions — followed in 10 states

301816182018301840185018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Parker, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court. We think that the plaintiff is barred of his action, by the compromise made by him and the other creditors with the defendant. They au *342thorized their agent to receive a * conveyance of the defendant’s house and land, and other property; and they agreed to receive a distributive share of the proceeds of the sale thereof, and to discharge their demands against the defendant, whatever portion of their demands the proceeds of such sale should nay That one creditor refused to execute the letter of attorney makes no difference ; as there was no provision that it should be void, if it was not executed by all. Nor is it material, that no agreement, in the nature of a counterpart, was executed by the defendant. This was not required by the terms of the contract; and the execution and delivery of the deed by the defendant, in pursuance of the agreement of the creditors, and the acceptance of that deed by their agent, and his sale of the property afterwards, was a complete execution of the contract on both sides.

¶2These facts would have maintained the issue for the defendant, upon a plea of accord and satisfaction. For, although the plaintiff refused to receive his dividend of the proceeds, yet his agent had received the equivalent for the discharge which was promised, when he took the deed of the defendant’s property.

¶3Plaintiff nonsuit.

/13/mass/424 · .json · Public domain