Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/543

523 TPVO THEORIES OF CONSIDERATION. 523 case was based upon any doctrine of consideration. But, fortu- nately, Coke's opinion is not a mere matter of inference. We have his own explicit statement, discriminating in the sharpest way between the operation of part payment as a satisfaction and as a consideration. In Bagge v. Slade ^ he said : " If a man be bound to another by a bill in 1000 pounds and he pays unto him 500 pounds in discharge of this bill, the which he accepts of accordingly, and doth upon this assume and promise to deliver up unto him his said bill of 1000 pounds, this 500 pounds is no satisfaction of the 1000 pounds, but yet this is good and sufficient to make a good promise and upon a good consideration because he has paid money, 500 pounds, and he hath no remedy for this again." In 1639 the obligor recovered judgment upon a promise like that in the case put by Coke, the Court saying: "For though legally, after the obligation is forfeited, 30 pounds can be no satisfaction for 60 pounds, yet to have the money in his hands without suit is a good consideration to maintain this action upon the promise."^ There are several other cases where payment of part of what was due was adjudged a sufficient consideration to support a promise to deliver up the obligation.^ There are also cases in which pay- ment of the whole was deemed a consideration for a similar promise.* In Morris v. Badger^ it was decided, in 1621, that pay- ment by a surety would support^ a promise by the creditor to sue the principal and hold the amount recovered for the benefit of the surety. In Hubbard v. Farrer,^ decided in 1635, a promise by an 1 3 Bulst. 162, I Roll. R. 354, Jenk. Cent. Cas. 324, pi. 38, Harv. Ms. R. temp. 14 James I., 2, s. c. 2 Rawlins v. Lockey, (1639) I Vin. Ab. 308, pi. 24. " Because speedy payment excuses and prevents labour and expense of suit ; " Anon., (1598) I Roll. Ab. 27, pi. 53, per Popham, C. J. Johnson v. Astill, (1667) i Lev. 198, 2 Keb. 155 s. c. : "By the Court. Payment without suit or trouble of that which is due is a good consideration." See also the opinion of littledale, J., to the same effect in Wilkinson v. Byers, i A. & E. 106. Hutt. Id (cited); Flight v. Crasden, (1625) Cro. Car. 8, Hutt. 76, s. c: "It is con- sideration sufficient to have it paid without suit or trouble." Anon., (1675) ^ Vent 1675: " Payment of a debt without suit is a good consideration." Dixon V. Adams, (1596) Cro. El. 538, Moo. 710 s. c. is contra, but, so far as the writer has discovered, is the only reported English decision in which the plaintiff failed in an action upon a promise given in consideration of the payment of money due. There are dicta to the same effect in RLchards v. Bartlett, (1582) i Leon. 19; Greenleaf v. Barker, (1596) Cro. El. 193. 6 Palm. 16S, Harv. Ms. Rep. temp. 2-22 James L, f. 181, pi. 6, s. c. « I Vin. Ab. 306, pi. 17. 68
 * Reynolds v. Pinhowe, (1595) Cro. El. 429, i Roll. Ab. 28, pi. 54, Moo. 412, s. c:
 * Cook V. Huet, (1581) i Leon. 238, pi. 317 (cited), Cro. El. 194 (cited) s. C ; Anon.,