Case ID: ny_54/html/0635-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Gray, C.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Scott, Respondent, v. Ephraim J. Frink, Appellant
    (Argued January 18, 1873;
    decided March term, 1873.)
    Plaintiff held a mortgage upon defendant’s premises, the balance unpaid upon which was not yet due, the latter desired to pay up the mortgage, the former desired to retain the investment. Neither party knew the precise amount unpaid. Defendant supposed such amount was about $900. He offered plaintiff $500 to cancel the mortgage, saying he would give that, more or less, as he wanted to get it off his farm. Plaintiff, accepted the offer; $250 was paid down and defendant agreed to pay the balance in two or three days, when plaintiff was to cancel the mortgage. Defendant subsequently paid thirty dollars, but discovering that there was in fact but $389.55 unpaid upon the mortgage at the time of the contract, he refused to pay more. Plaintiff executed and tendered a proper satisfaction-piece and demanded the balance of the $500.
    In an action to recover such balance, held, that there was ample consideration for the agreement, that the same was valid and binding, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover.
    
      Charles Mason for the appellant.
    
      Francis Kernan for the respondent..
   Gray, C.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur upon the ground that there was ample consideration for the promise, and that the agreement was valid and binding.

Judgment affirmed.