The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1916-07-12
No. 20,O96.
Joseph Sigler, Appellee,

Joseph SlSler, Appellee,
vs.
Ode sigler, Appellant.
AFFIRMED.
1. The rule that a payment of a lesser
it shall be in full discharge of the entire
debt will not bar an action to recover the
balance unless made upon new and dis
tinct consideration, rests rather upon tech
meal considerations than upon reason, and
the strict adherence to it has often resulted
Of the real Intent of the parties. The mod
ern tendency of the courts has been to
enlarge the exceptions to the rule in order
to avoid it's harshness and in order to
carry into effect settlements, adjustments
and compromises.
2 While the agreement that smaller
sum shall be accepted in discharge of a
larger sum due must be consummated by
meeting of the minds of the parties,
Pac. S75), it is sufficient Ii the smaller
sum has been offered and accepted with
the f tba that # is In full salts
is accompanied by a sufficient considera-
ton.
g. Where 1t is shown that the minds of
the parties, whether acting by themselves
principals, or through others as agents,
have met and agreed upon the proposition
extinguish all right on the part of the
creditor to exact further payment, any
or loss or Inconvenience to the other. will
be held to constitute a consideration for
the new agreement
f. debtor may authorize a third per-
son as his agent to make satisfaction of
his debt, and If what is given by the
stranger is accepted in satisfaction by. the
creditor, who thereupon releases the debt,
and the agents act is authorized or sub
sequently ratified by the debtor. there
g. sufficient consideration is shown
for an agreement that payment of a
lesser sum shall be in full discharge of
the entire debt, where, far shown
by the evidence or findings, the money
actually received by the creditor was adj
vanced for the. debtor by third party
6. Section 126 of the Negotiable Instru-
ments Law (Gen- Stat 1903, par. 1922
which negotiable instruments may be dis
charged, including 90 when the principal
debtor becomes the holder of the instru
ment at or after maturity in his own
right" is construed, and the phrase ''in his
own right is held to include case where
the maker of a promissory note, past due,
purchase the note from the holder thereof
who, in consideration of the payment to
the amount due, assigns and transfers the
note and mortgage securing the same
to the agent, who, releases the mortgage
and transfers the note to the maker upon
being reimbursed by the latter, notwith-
standing the fact that the holder of the
note believes the agent is purchasing the
I. Whether the transaction referred to
in the preceding paragraph be considered
money to purchase the note through his
agent, one in which the agent first
purchased the note with his own funds
and afterwards, upon being reimbursed by
the maker, transferred it to the latter, the
maker becomes the holder of the note after
maturity Tin his own right"
s. Upon the findings of fact it is held
there was no showing of fraud in the
transaction in which plaintiff, who held
due note against his brother, was
induced to sell and assign the instrument
to his brothers agent for a sum less than
the amount due thereon.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy
Attest: D. A VALENTINE.
[SealJ Clerk Supreme Court