Murray v. Bethune
1 Wend. 191 · New York Supreme Court · 1828
Facts
The plaintiffs and a witness, John R. Wheaton, had an agreement. Separately, the testator, who is the defendant's predecessor, owed an admitted amount to the plaintiffs. The testator paid this admitted amount into court during a former lawsuit that was commenced against him by the same plaintiffs for the same cause of action. The defendant now claims this prior payment discharged the debt.
Issue
1. Whether a witness should be permitted to testify as to his uncommunicated understanding of an agreement between him and the plaintiffs. 2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict for an amount admitted to be due, from which the defendant claimed discharge due to a prior payment into court by the testator.
Holding
The judge correctly decided that a witness's uncommunicated understanding of an agreement is inadmissible. The prior payment into court by the testator was a valid discharge of the debt. Therefore, the motion for a new trial is denied.
Rule
The mere understanding of one party to an agreement, not communicated or assented to by the other party, cannot be given in evidence to establish the contract, as mutual assent is requisite for a contract. Any act or declaration connected with the transaction may be evidence to infer understanding, but an uncommunicated impression cannot justify inferring the other party's understanding was the same. An exception exists for cases like breach of promise of marriage, where the state of affections may be an exception to the general rule against opinion testimony. A payment regularly made into court by a testator in a former suit for the same cause of action constitutes a payment pro tanto, and the subsequent death of the defendant or revival of the action does not change its effect.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.