It аppears to be established that appellants acquired a business which had belonged to onе of the respondents ; that in the securing and reorganizing of that business they agreed that in consideration оf certain assistance offered by a brother of one of the respondents, to give the respondent, Otto Logemann, a substantial interest in the reorgаnized business. There was a failure to perform on the part of the appellants and, because of this, these respondents began a suit in equity seeking to compel the appellants to carry оut that agreement. When that suit was reached for triаl á series of conferences occurred and a new agreement was made under which, in consideration of the dismissal of the suit for specific performance, the appellants would pay to respondents “for their support and maintenance, the sum of fifty dollars ($50) a month during the term of their lives.”
The present action is to recover amounts due undеr the last agreement. The appellants offer an objection based on a theory that because the order dismissing this suit for specific performаnce does not set forth the terms which induced the dismissаl of the suit, no testimony may be introduced bearing thereon. Sec. 269.46 (2), Stats., does provide that no agreеment, stipulation, or consent between parties or their attorneys shall be binding' unless made in court and еntered in the minutes or made in writing and duly subscribed by the parties to be bound; but the limitation is only in respect to the рroceedings in the action. The stipulation to end the suit in equity, ended that litigation. A judgment was entered which still stands and upon which no attack is made. The section of the statutes appellants seek to havе applied cannot serve their purpose. It was not intended to modify accepted cоntract law. It has reference to stipulations dirеctly affecting
*518
the course of an action in court and does not control subsequent causes of action on different issues. That the consent to dismissаl of a
bona fide
cause of action is ample consideration to support a new promise is well-sеttled.
Levis v. Black River Improvement Co.
(1900)
The appellants further object to the amount of the recovery. Judgment was allowed for $3,050' and interest, much of which fell due after commencеment of the action. But these instal-ments becamе due while the matter was pending in court. The allowance of such instalments under the circumstances here prevailing is in no way prejudicial to appellants.
Smith v. Crucible S. C. Co.
(1920)
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.