Goodwin v. Fox

Citations

• 129 U.S. 601
• 9 S. Ct. 367
• 32 L. Ed. 805
• 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1714

Syllabus

<p>By a -written agreement between two parties, one acknowledged that he was indebted to the other in the sum of $70,000. “over and above all discounts and set-offs of every name and nature; •” and it was stated that the latter was to take up and satisfy certain other indebtedness of the former, and that the former had conveyed to the latter a stock of goods, and' store-fixtures, notes, books and accounts, and a piece of land, “ with power forthwith, at such times and in such manner as ” the latter should “ deem best, to convert the said goods,” “ fixtures, notes, accounts and premises into money, and apply the proceeds to the payment of said indebtedness,” with interest, and also a certain farm; and it was agreed that if the former should, within six months from date, pay said indebtedness, the latter would reconvey the farm, but, in default of such payment, might foreclose ‘ ‘ the certain mortgage comprised in ” the conveyance of the farm and the agreement. The conveyances mentioned in the agreement were made, arid the title to the piece of land and the farm and the right to the indebtedness, came into the hands of the plaintiff, who sold the land, and brought this suit in equity against the original debtor for an account of the amount due oq the security of the farm, and for a foreclosure of the ■debtor’s equity of redemption in the farm: Held,</p> <p>(1) The debtor could not go behind the agreement fixing the debt at $70,000, because there was no sufficient evidence to impeach it, on the ground that his signature was obtained by fraud or duress, or without his full knowledge of its provisions and consent to its terms;</p> <p>(2) The debtor was entitled to be credited only with the sums realized by the creditor from the sale of the personal property and piece of land, and not with sums estimated, by testimony, as their value at the time of the agreement;</p> <p>(3) Under the statute of Illinois, where the transaction took place, the creditor was entitled to inter