¶1delivered the opinion of the Court, that the third plea was bad. The agreement stated in that plea, although under seal, did not operate as an extinguishment of the simple contract debt. The agreement was but a collateral undertaking, to come to a settlement within a limited period, which had elapsed before the commencement of the suit, and to pay the balance found due upon suich settlements There was no averment in the. plea that any such settlement had been had, under that agreement, and, consequently, the covenant to pay the balance, did not appear to have attached upon the demand.
9 U.S. 556
Baits v. Peters
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 20, 1824
Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1824-02-20
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in the Court below;, in February, 1321, by Baits, the plantiff in error, against PeWs &“ Stebbins; the defendants in error, in which the plaintiff de- . dared against the defendants, upon an agreement to account with him for goods delivered by hito to the defendants, for sale on commission, and also For money had and received, and upon an in simul ■computassent.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1986
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1824-02-20
View the full empirical analysis of this case →