Under the rule we have been discussing, the simple payment of a smaller sum in satisfaction of a larger is not a good discharge of a debt, for it is doing no more than the debtor is already bound to do, and is therefore no consideration for the creditor's promise to forego the residue.21 If, for instance, a person owes another $1,000, the payment of which may be demanded at once, a promise by the creditor to take $500 in full, and its payment, will not prevent his afterwards recovering the other $500.

This rule is well established and continues to be recognized by the courts.22 It has, however, been the object of frequent and severe criticism, as failing to take into consideration the practical importance of the difference between a right to a thing and the actual possession of it, and as serving to defeat the ends of justice and common honesty.23 This general feeling as to the injustice of the rule has led the courts to narrow its scope wherever possible, and they have accordingly laid hold upon the slightest circumstances to take a case out of its operation.24 Thus it has been held not to apply to unliquidated debts,25 or where the payment is made before maturity, or at a different place from that at which the debtor was bound to make it,28 or where an insolvent debtor in reliance on the creditor's promise to receive the part payment in satisfaction of the whole debt, refrained from taking advantage of the insolvency or bankruptcy law.27

Tenn. 275, 32 S. W. 195; Havana Press Drill Co. v. Ashurst, 148 111. 115, 35 N. E. 873. See, also, Brownlee v. Lowe, 117 Ind. 420, 20 N. E. 301. See. "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 7J,; Cent. Dig. §§ 331-343.

21 Pinnel's Case, 5 Coke, 117a; Cumber v. Wane, 1 Strange, 426, 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. 439; JAFFRAY v. DAVIS, 124 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 351, 11 L. R. A. 710, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 120 (collecting cases); Harriman v. Har-riman, 12 Gray (Mass.) 341; Bailey v. Day, 26 Me. 88; Goodwin v. Follett, 25 Vt. 386; Barron v. Vandvert, 13 Ala. 232; Hayes v. Insurance Co., 125 111. 626, 18 N. E. 322, 1 L. R. A. 303; Harrison v. Close, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 448, 3 Am. Dec. 444; Bender v. Been, 78 Iowa, 283, 43 N. W. 216, 5 L. R. A. 649; Leeson v. Anderson, 99 Mich. 247, 58 N. W. 72, 41 Am. St Rep. 597; Bryan v. Foy, 69 N. C. 45; Carlton v. Railroad Co., 81 Ga. 531, 7 S. E. 623; Liening v. Gould, 13 Cal. 598; Watts v. Frenche, 19 N. J. Eq. 407; Beaver v. Fulp, 136 Ind. 595, 36 N. E. 418; Lankton v. Stewart, 27 Minn. 346, 7 N. W. 360; Willis v. Gammill, 67 Mo. 730; St. Louis, F., S. & W. R. Co. v. Davis, 35 Kan. 464, 11 Pac. 421; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 55 Ark. 369, 18 S. W. 377; Emmitts-burg R. Co. v. Donoghue, 67 Md. 383, 10 Atl. 233, 1 Am. St. Rep. 396; Tyler v. Association, 145 Mass. 134, 13 N. E. 360; Mcintosh v. Johnson, 51 Neb. 33, 70 N. W. 522. And see cases cited in note 6, supra. For the same reason, a promise to take less than the sum due is also without consideration. Mc-Kenzie v. Culbreth, 66 N. C. 534; Foakes v. Beer, L. R. 9 App. Cas. 605; Rose v. Daniels, 8 R. I. 381; Smith v. Phillips, 77 Va. 548; Bryan v. Brazil, 52 Iowa, 350, 3 N. W. 117; Hart v. Strong, 183 I11. 349, 55 N. E. 629. Nor is part payment any consideration for an agreement to extend the time for payment of the residue. Holliday v. Poole, 77 Ga. 159; Liening v. Gould, 13 Cal. 598; Barron v. Vandvert, 13 Ala. 232; Turnbull v. Brock, 31 Ohio St. 649. And see post, p. 614. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 8; Cent. Dig. §§ 60-65.

22 Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231, 33 N. E. 1034, 20 L. R. A. 785 and note; Melroy v. Kemmerer, 218 Pa. 381, 67 Atl. 699, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1018, 120 Am. St. Rep. 888 and note. And see cases cited supra, note 21. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 8; Cent. Dig. §§ 60-6.5.

23 See Two Theories of Consideration by Prof. James Barr Ames, 12 Harv. L. R. 515, 525; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Clark, 178 U. S. 353, 20 Sup. Ct

Clark Cont.(3d Ed.) - 11

So it has been held that since a person may, if he choose, make a gift to another which when accepted will be irrevocable, a creditor may, on receiving part of the debt, forgive the debtor the residue, and that a receipt in full may be evidence of such forgiveness.28 In at least one jurisdiction the court has gone so far as to repudiate the rule altogether;29 and in some states the rule has been changed by statute so that acceptance of a less sum in satisfaction of a debt is a discharge.30

Since a contract under seal requires no consideration, a creditor, on receiving part payment of his debt, may release the residue by an instrument under seal.31

924, 44 L. Ed. 1099; Melroy v. Kemmerer, 218 Pa. 381, 67 Atl. 699, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1018, 120 Am. St. Rep. 888; First Nat Bank of Nashville v. Shook, 100 Tenn. 436, 45 S. W. 338; Brown v. Kern, 21 Wash. 211, 57 Pac. 798. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 8; Cent. Dig. §§ 60-65.

24 See post,162-165. 25 See post, 164. 26 See post, 163.

27 Melroy v. Kemmerer, 218 Pa. 381, 67 Atr. 699, 11 L. R. A (N. S.) 1018, 120 Am. St. Rep. 888; Herman v. Schlesinger, 114 Wis. 382, 90 N. W. 460, 91 Am. St. Rep. 922; Rotan. Grocery Co. v. Noble, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 226, 81 S. W. 586. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec, Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 8, 10; Cent. Dig. §§ 60-74.

28 McKENZIE v. HARRISON, 120 N. Y. 260, 24 N. E. 458, 8 L. R. A. 257, 17 Am. St. Rep. 638, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 365; Green v. Langdon, 28 Mich. 221; Tyler Cotton Press Co. v. Chevalier, 56 Ga. 494. See, also, Lamprey v. Lamprey, 29 Minn. 151, 12 N. W. 514. A receipt "in full of all demands," given because the other party refused to pay more without it, held binding. Flynn v. Hurlock, 194 Pa. 462, 45 Atl. 312. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. §§ 92-96.

29Clayton v. Clark, 74 Miss. 499, 21 South. 565, 37 L. R. A. 771, 60 Am. St. Rep. 521. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. §§ 92-96.

30This is the case in Alabama, Maine, North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia. See Tiddy v. Harris, 101 N. C. 589, 8 S. E. 227; Jones v. Wilson, 104 N. C. 9, 10 S. E. 79. See "Accord and Satisfaction," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. §§ 92-96.

31 Bender v. Sampson, 11 Mass. 42; Willing v. Peters, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 177; Ingersoll v. Martin, 58 Md. 67, 42 Am. Rep. 322; Spitze v. Railroad Co., 75 Md. 162, 23 Atl. 307, 32 Am. St Rep. 378. See "Release," Dec Dig. (Key-No.) § 12; Cent. Dig. §§ 18-20.