McClure v. McClure
Citations
- 100 Cal. 339
- 34 P. 822
- 1893 Cal. LEXIS 794
Syllabus
<p>Contract—Consideration—Compromise op Litigation—Husband and Wipe.—A compromise agreement between a husband and wife by which they both agree to dismiss pending litigation between them is a sufficient consideration for a note and mortgage given to the wife by the husband, where the agreement remains unrescinded, and there is no pretense of fraud or imposition or that the compromise suits were not brought and defended bona fide.</p> <p>Id.—Compromise op Litigation Favored—Family Settlements.—A promise to compromise a suit brought bona fide on probable cause is a valid consideration for a contract, even though the suit should be held to be unfounded. Not only will such agreements be sustained, in the absence of fraud, but they are highly favored as productive of peace and goodwill in the community, and reducing the expense and persist-ency of litigation, and this is especially so of family settlements, where the courts will not undertake to weigh actual loss or gain, unless there be an imposition.</p>
Judges: Vanclief
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Levy v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1995-06-22· cited 109×
- Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2000-07-10· cited 95×
- Neary v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1992-08-13· cited 85×
- Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San BenitoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1999-05-13· cited 83×
- Bradley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1957-05-07· cited 82×
- Stambaugh v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1976-09-24· cited 63×
- In Re Marriage of VomackaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1984-07-16· cited 62×
- Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 1992-01-15· cited 50×
- Fisher v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1980-03-14· cited 45×
- Union Bank of California v. Braille Institute of America, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2001-10-19· cited 36×
- Collins v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1957-04-12· cited 26×
- Gopal v. YoshikawaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1983-09-21· cited 23×
- Imen v. GlassfordCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1988-05-31· cited 22×
- Abouab v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2006-07-20· cited 18×
- Oil Tool Exchange, Inc. v. SchuhCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1944-12-13· cited 4×
- Tessendorf v. LasaterCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1900-06-15· cited 2×
- Bloomer v. CistCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County· 1897-04-15
- Ridenour v. ChamberlainCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division· 1910-10-15
- Rheinhart v. Nissan North AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2023-06-27
- Birdsall v. HelfetCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2025-08-11
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.