Case Name: Dawson et al., executors, vs. Beall, administrator
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1882-02
Citations: 68 Ga. 328
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dawson et al., executors, vs. Beall, administrator.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 328–330

Head Matter:
Dawson et al., executors, vs. Beall, administrator.
1. An agreement by a debtor not to go into bankruptcy and thereby be discharged from a certain debt, or at least imperil its collection, furnished a sufficient consideration to support a contract by the creditor to take less for the debt than the full amount thereof.
2. The verdict is supported by the evidence.
Contracts: Bankruptcy. Verdict. Debtor and Creditor. Before Judge WILLIS. Upson Superior Court. November Term, 1881.
An execution issued in May, 1872, against Daniel R. Beall in favor of Davis Dawson, to which an affidavit of illegality was filed, one ground of which was substantially as follows: Defendant borrowed money of the plaintiff prior to the war, mortgaging slaves to secure the debt; defendant lost a large amount of property by the war, and was unable to pay his debts; in 1867 plaintiff obtained judgment against defendant for the balance of the debt due him, and the following year the parties entered into an agreement by which defendant was to pay plaintiff in full satisfaction of the debt a sum which, added to the amount already paid, would make the sum of $1,500.00, the amount originally borrowed, and that the same should be paid as defendant by his personal labor could make it; defendant further agreed, as part of the contract, that he would take no benefit of homestead, exemption or bankrupt laws ; defendant paid off the debt in accordance with the terms of this contract.
The plaintiff denied the terms of the contract as set forth in the affidavit.
Pending the cause, the original parties died, and their representatives were made parties.
It is unnecessary to set out the evidence introduced on the trial. The jury found the issue in favor of the defendant, and judgment was rendered that the execution should be returned satisfied. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
(1.) Because the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence.
(2.) Because the verdict was contrary to the justice and equity of the case.
The motion for a new trial was overruled, and plaintiffs excepted.
Hall & Son ; M. H. Sandwich; W. S. Wallace, by brief, for plaintiffs in error.
Boynton & Hammond ; R. F. Patielo, for defendants.

Opinion:
Jackson, Chief Justice.
The agreement not to make application for, and be discharged from a debt in bankruptcy is a sufficient consideration to support a contract to take a less sum for the debt than what is due thereon. It is a new and valuable consideration for the reduction of the original debt. The agreement not to be adjudicated a bankrupt, and thereby not to wipe out or endanger the whole debt, is certainly a valuable consideration to support a promise to compro mise the debt, because it bargains not to extinguish all of it or at least not to imperil it. Code, §2880.
The verdict that a contract to reduce the debt in consideration of the defendants not going into bankruptcy was made by the parties, is supported by the evidence. Where it is conflicting, the finding of the jury with the approval of the presiding judge will not be disturbed by this court.
Judgment affirmed.