Page McArthur v. Home Life Ass'n (Io.).. 430 Murray v. Scribner (Wis.).. McAvoy, State v. (Io.)..... 630 Musgrave, Cowan v. (Io.). Page 311 496 McCaul v. Thayer (Wis.)... 353 901 Muskegon Booming Co., Witheral v. (Mich.).. 758 McClintic, State v. (Io.). McClure v. Thorpe (Mich.).. 829 696 Musser-Sauntry Land, L. & Manuf'g Co., De Mars v. (Minn.). 1 McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Jacobson (Io.)....... 627 Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. 853 McCoy v. State (Neb.)... 202 Myers, State v. (Io.). 114 McDonald v. Estate of Kelly (Wis.) 295 McDonald v. Peacock (Minn.). 870 Mynning v. Detroit, L. & N. R. Co. (Mich.)...... 811 McDonnell, Cook v. (Wis.). McGarvey v. Roods (Io.)... McGeoch, Wells v. (Wis.). McKay v. Williams (Mich.). McKee v. Hull (Wis.).. 49 Nemadji Boom Co., Tourville v. McKenna v. State Ins. Co. (Io.).. 519 (Wis.) 330 McKesson v. Hawley (Neb.).. 883 Neuberger, Pendill v. (Mich.). 249 McKinney v. Harvie (Minn.). 668 Newman v. State (Neb.).. 194 McLaughlin, Cavenaugh v. (Minn.) 576 Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, McMillan, Stevens v. (Minn.).. 372 (Minn.).. 577 Meier v. Paulus (Wis.).. 301 Noel, State v. (Io.).. $22 Meisen, Mack v. (Wis.).. 291 Norton v. Ohrns (Mich.).. 175 Merchants' Exch. Bank v. Luckow Noyes v. Schner (Wis.).. 310 Nugent v. Teachout (Mich.). 254 Mercier, Hays v. (Neb.). 894 Merkle v. Township of Bennington (Mich.).... 846 Merriam, Humphrey v. (Minn.).. 365 Merriman, King v. (Minn.)... 570 O'Halloran, Pigott v. (Minn.)... 4 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Frain v. Ohrns, Norton v. (Mich.)... 175 (Mich.)... 108 Oliver, Booth v. (Mich.).. 793 Olson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. Meyer, Witte v. (Wis.)... 25 (Minn.).... 866 Miller v. Beck (Mich.). 899 Omaha Medical College v. Rush Miller v. Miller (Io.). 464 (Neb.).. 222 Miller v. Town of Jacobs (Wis.). Miner, Ross v. (Mich.). 60 nell (Neb.). 235 Minneapolis E. Ry. Co., Connelly v. Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. Brown Page Paulus, Meier v. (Wis.).. ..... 301 Pendill v. Eells (Mich.)... 424 754 Richardson v. Rogers (Minn.)...... 270 472 180 499 940 545 87 Roberts, Burchard v. (Wis.). 286 602 88 Rockford Ins. Co., Hankins V. 34 Peters, Paige v. (Wis.).. 328 679 Rockwood v. Davenport (Minn.)........ 377 Rogers v. White (Mich.).. 799 Redfield, State v. (Io.). ...... Rich v. City of Minneapolis (Minn.) 2 Shafer v. Hogue (Wis.)... 673 Security Bank v. Beede (Minn.).... 435 269 Seefeld v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. 631 Co. (Wis.)... 278 465 Seymour v. Peters (Mich.)... 62 928 THE Northwestern Reporter. VOLUME XXXV. DE MARS v. MUSSER-SAUNTRY LAND, L. & MANUF'e Co. (Supreme Court of Minnesota. November 8, 1887.) COMPROMISE-CONSIDERATION-DISPUTED CLAIM. To constitute a good consideration for the compromise of a disputed claim, it is not necessary that the matter in dispute should be really doubtful in fact, provided the parties bona fide considered it so But there must have been in fact a dispute or doubt as to the rights of the parties honestly entertained. A party cannot create a dispute sufficient as a consideration for a compromise, by merely refusing to pay an undisputed claim. (Syllabus by the Court.) Appeal from municipal court of Stillwater; NETHAWAY, Judge. Searles, Ewing & Gail, for De Mars, respondent. Clapp & Macartney, for Musser-Sauntry Land, L. & Manuf'g Co., appellant. MITCHELL, J. Action to recover for work performed for defendant in a logging camp. There being no evidence that any special time of payment was fixed in the contract, plaintiff's wages would be payable upon demand any time after the services were performed. But, by way of defense, the defendant alleges that after the work was completed the parties had a disagreement as to the terms of payment under the contract, and that thereupon they had a settlement of their dispute, by the terms of which $67.26 of plaintiff's account should become due at once, and the balance of $200 in 60 days after the logs on which the work was performed should arrive in the St. Croix boom; and that defendant paid plaintiff the $67.26, in cash, and gave him a due-bill for the balance, payable according to the terms of their settlement, which plaintiff accepted in full settlement of his claim, and that the logs had not arrived in the St. Croix boom. The court below found that there was no consideration for this alleged settlement, and the only question presented on this appeal is whether this is sustained by the evidence. The defendant is entirely right in his law that the compromise of a disputed or doubtful claim is in itself a good consideration, and that no investigation into the character or value of the claims submitted will be gone into for the purpose of setting aside a compromise honestly made. It is sufficient if the parties entering into it thought at the time that there was a question between them. It is not even necessary that the question in dispute should be really doubtful, if the parties bona fide considered it so. The real consideration which each party receives under a compromise is not the sacrifice of the right, v.35N.w.no.1-1 |