¶1The charge of the court was correct. Giving up a suit, or any equivalent proceedings, instituted to try a question, the legal result of which is doubtful, is a good consideration for a promise to pay a sum of money for an abandonment thereof. Inequality of consideration does not constitute a valid objection, if there be an actual controversy, of which the issue may fairly be considered by both párties as doubtful. 1 Parsons on Contracts, m. p. 426, 427; Maull v. Vaughn, 45 Ala. 134. Notwithstanding Confederate money loaned entered into the consideration of the note in suit, the corn purchased constituted the largest proportion of the consideration, and the dismissal of the attachment suit was an essential part of it. Curry v. Davis, 44 Ala. 281. We have not held Confederate money to be an illegal consideration, vitiating contracts into which its use entered, on the ground of public policy. The judgment is affirmed.
51 Ala. 529
Bozeman v. Rushing
Decided June 15, 1874
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1874-06-15
Tried before the Hon. M. J. Saeeold. This action was brought by James M. Rushing against Joseph L. Bozeman and James A. Bozeman, and was founded on the defendants’ promissory note for $850, dated the 8th January, 1867, and payable to the plaintiff on the 1st January, 1868, with interest from date. The record does not show what pleas were filed.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1887
1 state decisions
Relies on Maull v. Vaughn · Curry v. Davis
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-06-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →