Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/538

518 5l8 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. a promise given therefor ; that the promisee's belief in the vah'dity of his claim as well as the fact that the claim was fairly doubtful in law or fact were alike irrelevant circumstances. There is surely no objection on the score of public policy to the enforcement of a promise obtained by a promisee in return for his forbearance to sue upon a fairly doubtful or a bona fide claim. It follows, therefore, that the line of decisions just mentioned can be supported only on the theory that forbearance to prosecute an invalid claim is not a detriment. And the cases were in fact decided upon this principle. This view is clearly stated by Tindal, C. J., in Wade v- Simeon : ^ " Detrimental to the plaintiff it [forbearance] cannot be if he has no cause of action ; and beneficial to the defendant it cannot be, for, in contemplation of law, the defence upon such an admitted state of facts, must be successful, and the defendant will recover costs ; which must be assumed to be a full compensation for all legal damage he may sustain." But this seemingly inveterate doctrine has been overruled. Since the case of Longridge v. Dorville,^ decided in 182 1, it has been generally agreed that forbearance to enforce a claim that might reasonably be thought doubtful will support a promise, although the claim be really invalid.^ In Callisher v. Bischoffs- heini,'^ it was decided in accordance with opinions expressed in Cook V. Wright,^ that a promise in consideration of forbearance of an invalid claim was binding unless the claim was made mala fide. This decision, though criticised by Brett, L. J., in Ex parte Banner,^ has been approved and followed in subsequent casesJ The late English cases have been cited with approval in several recent American cases.' The modern English rule accords so well with the views of business men, that it can hardly fail of general adoption in this country.* 1 2 C. B. 548, 564. See the similar statement by Maule, J., page 566. 2 5 B. &Ald. 117. 8 Keenaii v. Handley, 2 D. J. & S. 283 ; Wilby v. Elgee, L. R. 10 C. P. 497. Many American decisions to the same effect are cited in Professor Williston's note to i Pars. Cont. (8 Ed.) 458. ■^ Ockford V. Barelli, 25 L. T. Rep. 504 ; Kingsford v. Oxenden, 7 Times L. R. 13^ 565 (C. A.) ; Miles v. New Zealand Co., 32 Ch. Div. 266. 8 Prout V. Pittsfield District, 154 Mass. 450; Grandin v. Grandin, 49 N. Y. 508; Wahl V. Barnum, 116 N. Y. 87 ; Hewett v. Currier, 63 Wis. 386. 9 The following cases in addition to those already cited, support the doctrine of Callisher v. Bischoffsheim. Union Bank v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99; Morris v. Munroe, 30 Ga»
 * L. R. s Q. B. 449. 6 I B. & S. SS9.
 * 17 Ch. D. 480, 490.