STRONG V. SHEFFIELD, Court of Appeals of NY, 1895. 144 N.Y. 392, 39 N.E. 330

Document Sample
STRONG V. SHEFFIELD, Court of Appeals of NY, 1895. 144 N.Y. 392, 39 N.E. 330 Powered By Docstoc
					CONTRACTS
STRONG V. SHEFFIELD, Court of Appeals of NY, 1895. 144 N.Y. 392, 39 N.E. 330. History: Judgment for Plaintiff Strong was reversed by General Term of the Supreme Court Facts: Demand note was made by the husband of the defendant and endorsed by her at his request and delivered to the Plaintiff (payee) as security for an antecedent debt owed to the Plaintiff by the husband; debt of husband was past due at the time and the only consideration for the wife’s endorsement is that as part of the transaction there was an agreement by the plaintiff when the note was given to forbear the collection of the debt or a request for forbearance, which was followed by forbearance for about two years after the giving of the note Issue(s): Promissory note Holding: Reversal of judgment for Plaintiff Strong affirmed Analysis: Agreement by the creditor to forbear the collection of debt presently due is a good consideration for an absolute or conditional promise of a 3rd person to pay the debt A request followed by performance is sufficient and mutual promises at the time are not essential unless it was the understanding the promisor was not to be bound, except on condition that the other party entered into an immediate and reciprocal obligation to do the thing requested The note did not extend the payment of the debt; it was payable on demand and consistent w/an intention that payment shouldn’t be immediately demanded; but there was nothing on its face to prevent an immediate suit on the note against the maker or to recover the original debt