Case Name: Baits v. Peters & Stebbins
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1824-02-20
Citations: 9 Wheat. 556
Docket Number: 
Parties: Baits v. Peters & Stebbins.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 556–557

Head Matter:
[Extinguishment.]
Baits v. Peters & Stebbins.
A covenant, under seal, to come to .a settlement within, a limited time, and to pay the balance which might be found due, is merejy collateral, and cannot be pleaded as an extinguishment of a simple contract.debt, the period,within which the settlement was tobe ■ made, having elapsed before the commencement of the suit, and the plea not averring that any such settlement had been made-
ERROR to the District Court of Alabama.
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. The defendants pleaded the fol- ■ lowing pleas: 1st. The general issue. 2d. Payment. , 3d. An agreement, under seal, made at New-York,'on the 15th of July, 1820, and long after the said promises and undertaking, between the plaintiff and one of the defendants, by which the plaintiff covenanted not to sue the defendants. within six months, and to send on an agent, within the same, term of time, to settle, the accounts with the defendants, at Blakely, in Alabama; and the defendants covenanted to come to a settlement with the said agent, and to pay the balance which should be t found to be due. To this last plea there was a demurrer, and, judgment being rendered thereon, by the Court below, for the defendants, the cause was brought by writ of error to this Court.
The cause was argued by Mr. Wheaton, for the plaintiff in error, no counsel appearing for the defendants in error. He argued that the agreement thus pleaded in bar, as an extinguishment, was not a sufficient bar to the action, but was merely a collateral undertaking, which did not extinguish the original demand.
Feb. 20th
The Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Cranch, 299. 303 Day v. Leal, 14 Johns. Rep. 404.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice. Marshall
delivered 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.