Philpot v. Gruninger, 81 U.S. 570

Mr. Justice STRONG

delivered the.opinion of the court.

That a part of the consideration of the note, was the debt due for the oil well which Gruninger had sold six months before to Philpot and Picket; or that the note was intended as an adjustment of that debt, is but faintly denied; but the plaintiffs in error insist that a part at least of the consideration was the agreement of the promisee to contribute to the formation of the proposed company, an agreement which they allege he has failed to perform; ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍and they complain that the jury were misled by an instruction that they might consider whether the signing of the agreement, or the undertaking of Gruninger to put into the company the interests mentioned, was anything more than an inducement to the making of the note by the defendants, furnishing a motive for giving it, but constituting no part of the consideration.

It is, however, not easy to see how the jury could have been misled, to the injury of the plaintiffs- in error, by calling attention to a possible distinction between the motive which may have induced giving the note and its consideration, even if no such distinction can be made. For if it be assumed, as was claimed, that the promisee’s undertaking to unite in the formation of a joint stock company was a part of the consideration, it could not aid the promisors. It would not be a step toward showing that the consideration had failed. Gruninger’s neglect or refusal to perform his agreement is not to be confounded with the agreement itself. The latter ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍was the consideration, not its performance. He might be answerable in damages for non-performance, but his undertaking to perform would have been the price of the defendants’ p ’omise. That undertaking they still have, and with it the full consideration. Nothing is more common than a promise in consideration of a promise, and the defendants’ pleas in this case aver that Gruninger’s undertaking was the price of their stipulation. Were it then couceded, as the defendants claimed, the jury would not have been warranted in finding that the consideration of the note had failed.

It is, however, not to be doubted that there is a clear distinction sometimes between the motive that may induce to entering into a contract and the consideration of the contract. Nothing is consideration that is not regarded as such by both parties. It is the price voluntarily paid for a promisor‘s undertaking. An expectation of results often leads to the formation of a contract, but neither the expectation nor the result is “the cause or meritorious-occasion requiring a. mutual recompense in fact or ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍in law.” * Surely a creditor may do a favor to his debtor, or may enter into a new aud independent contract with him, induced by which the debtor may assent to giving a note for the previously-existing indebtedness. Without the favor or the new contract there is in such a case a full consideration for the note, and the parties may not have contemplated that the favor or the .new contract was to be paid for. To regard them as entering into the consideration of-the note would be to make a contract for the parties to which their minds never assented.

It is argued that if Sherman did not owe the debt due from Philpot and Picket to Gruninger (as the jury might have found), there was no motive or inducement, much less even consideration, for his becoming a joint promisor in the -note, unless it was Gruninger’s agreement, and hence it is inferred that the‘jui‘y were misled in being allowed to consider that agreement as merely a motive or inducement to his assumption. But he was then a partner ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍of Philpot and Picket, and a joint owner with them of the property for which the debt had been contracted. A consideration moving to lxis copromisors was enough to support his promise. The note was given for a smaller sum than the price for which the property had been sold to them. It xvas accepted as a settlement of the promisee’s claim, and a conveyance of the property was made to all the defendants, including Sherman. There was, then, adequate consideration for his promise apart from Gruninger’s agreement to put other property into the proposed company. For these reasons, we think, there was no error in the instructions given by the court to the juxy.

The second assignment is that the court erred in excluding articles of copartnership between the defendants, dated November 8th, 1864. They were offered to show that the partnership did riot commence until after the sale of the oil well was made to Philpot and Picket, which was on the 19th of October, 1864, and therefore that Sherman was not a debtor to ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍Gruninger at that time or when the note was afterwards given. The proposed evidence seems to have been intended to show that the debt due for the well was not the consideration of Sherman’s promise, and to raise the inference that Gruninger’s agreement to join in forming the stock company was. We haveialready considered that, and from what we have said it appeal’s that the rejection of the evidence did not injure the defendants. Thatthei-e was error in the x-ejectiou has not been seriously contended.

Judgment is affirmed.

Notes

*

Dyer, 306 b.

Case Details

Case Name: Philpot v. Gruninger

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Nov 18, 1872

Citations: 81 U.S. 570; 20 L. Ed. 743; 14 Wall. 570; 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1024

Court Abbreviation: U.S.