Murray v. Bethune
1 Wend. 191 · New York Supreme Court · 1828
Facts
An agreement existed between John R. Wheaton and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought to introduce Wheaton's understanding of this agreement into evidence. Separately, the plaintiffs claimed an amount was due to them. The defendant contended that this amount had been discharged by a payment of money into court by the testator in a former suit. The testator had died, and the current action was against his executor.
Issue
The court considered whether a witness could testify about their uncommunicated understanding of an agreement. It also addressed whether a payment made into court by a testator in a prior suit discharged the debt, even when the action was revived or a new suit commenced against the executor.
Holding
The court held that a witness cannot testify about their uncommunicated understanding of an agreement. It further held that a payment made into court by a testator in a former suit discharges the debt, and the revival or commencement of a new suit against the executor does not change this effect.
Rule
To establish a contract, the assent of both parties is requisite, and the mere uncommunicated understanding or impression of one party cannot be given in evidence to prove the agreement. While acts or declarations connected with the transaction can show the agreement, an uncommunicated understanding cannot justify an inference of mutual assent. This rule prevents a dangerous relaxation of evidence rules, as such subjective understanding is difficult to disprove and cannot form the basis for perjury. Regarding payments, money paid into court by a testator in a former suit constitutes a payment pro tanto, which the plaintiff has a right to take out. The subsequent death of the defendant and the revival of the action against the executor, or even a new suit, does not alter the effect of this prior payment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.