Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Part-Payment-In-Satisfaction-Of-Debt-Part-3.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:36:54+00:00

Document:
We have already seen, in treating of forbearance as a consideration, that where a demand is made and disputed, or a suit is brought, the parties may enter into a compromise, and that the party upon whom the demand is made or against whom the suit is brought will be bound thereby. The consideration for his promise is the forbearance of the other party to insist on his original demand, or to further prosecute his action.40 In such a case the creditor or plaintiff is also bound by the compromise. The settlement of the dispute and definite promise by the debtor is a consideration for his promise to forego any further claim. He cannot disregard the compromise on the ground that the debtor promised only what he was already bound to do.41.
36 Pinnel's Case, 5 Coke, 117a; Brooks v. White, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 2S3, 37 Am. Dec. 95; Harper v. Graham, 20 Ohio, 105; Schweider v. Lang, 29 Minn. 254, 13 N. W. 33, 43 Am. Rep. 202; McKenzie v. Culbreth, 66 N. C. 534; Jones v. Perkins, 29 Miss. 139, 64 Am. Dec. 136; Reid v. Hibbard, 6 Wis. 175; Chicora Fertilizer Co. v. Dunan, 91 Md. 144, 46 Atl. 347, 50 L. R. A. 401. Cf. Saunders v. Whitcomb, 177 Mass. 457, 59 N. E. 192. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 9, 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 75-91.
37 JAFFRAY v. DAVIS, 124 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 351, 11 L. R. A. 710, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 120; Post v. Bank, 138 I11. 559, 28 N. E. 978. See "Accord and Satisfaction;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 9, 11; Cent. Dig. §§ 75-91.
38Wilkinson v. Byers, 1 Adol. & E. 106; Baird v. United States, 96 U. S. 430, 24 L. Ed. 703; Goss v. Ellison, 136 Mass. 503; Potter v. Douglass, 44 Conn. 541; Riley v. Kershaw, 52 Mo. 224; Ogbom v. Hoffman, 52 Ind. 439; Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231, 33 N. E. 1034, 20 L. R. A. 785; Sanford v. Abrams, 24 Fla. 181, 2 South. 373; Berdell v. Bissell, 6 Colo. 162; Stearns v. Johnson, 17 Minn. 142 (Gil. 116); Tanner v. Merrill, 108 Mich. 58, 65 N. W. 664, 31 L. R, A. 171, 62 Am. St. Rep. 687; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N. Y. 326, 42 N. E. 715, 51 Am. St. Rep. 695; Ostrander v. Scott, 161 I11. 339, 43 N. E. 1089; Chicago, M. & St P. Ry. v. Clark, 178 U. S. 353, 20 Sup. Ct. 924, 44 L. Ed. 1099. But see Huff v. Logan (Ky.) 60 S. W. 483. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 10; Cent. Dig. §§ 67-74.
39Tompkins v. Hill, 145 Mass. 379, 14 N.. E. 177; post, p. 615. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 10; Cent. Dig. §§ 67-74.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 § 10