Sec 534

It may be that a document which A. surrenders to B. may be worthless; but if there be no fraud, the mere fact that it would sustain prima facie a suit by which A. could be benefited makes the surrender a sufficient consideration to support a promise from B. to A. This has been held to apply to the surrender of an invalid will;1 and to the surrender of an invalid guaranty.2

Sec 535

While forbearance of a claim that has a prima facie case is a valid consideration, even though the claim prove to be without sound foundation, it is otherwise with an utterly void claim.3 This has been held to be the case with regard to a release by a party of all interest in an estate in which he has not even a show of an interest;4 with regard to a promise to conduct bankrupt proceedings so as to inconvenience the promisee as little as possible;5 with regard to the surrender of a tenancy at will, because a tenancy at will is not an estate of appreciable value;6 and with regard to surrendering claims in which there is obviously a valuable consideration. In Cavode v. M'Kelvey, Addison, 56, it was held that where one claimant purchased the title of another claimant, the contract was upon valuable consideration, though the title bought was bad. In O'Keson v. Barclay, 2 P. & W. 531, which was an action for libel, it was held that a compromise of the action was a valuable consideration sufficient to sustain an agreement, although the words alleged to be libellous were not actionable. - No investigation into the character or value of respective claims will be made, it being sufficient that the parties thought there was a question between them. 1 Parsons on Contr. 439. In Hoge v. Hoge, 1 Watts, 216, it was held that the compromise of a doubtful title was a valuable consideration, and sufficient, although a party thereto may have been ignorant of his rights, unless the compromise be vitiated by fraud sufficient to set aside any other contract." In Flannagan v. Kil-come, 58 N. H., it was held that it did not affect the principle stated in the text that it was shown that the abandoned suit ought to have prevailed; citing Pitkin v. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294, 304; Peirce v. Building Co., 9 La. 397, and other cases.

So of giving up of litigated document.

Forbearance of void claims no consideration.

1 Smith v. Smith, 13 C. B. N. S. 429.

2 Haigh v. Brooks, 10 A. & E. 309.

3 Leake, 2d ed. 625; Cowper v. Green, 7 M. & W. 633; N. H. Bank v. Colcord, 15 N. H. 119; Palfrey v. R. R., 4 Allen, 55; Knotts v. Preble, 50 111. 226; Hennessey v. Hill, 52 111. 281; Mulholland v. Bartlett, 74 111. 58; Lowe v. Weatherley, 4 Dev. & B. 212; Prater v. Miller, 25 Ala. 320; Barkley v. Hanlan, 55 Miss. 606.

4 Kaye v. Dutton, 7 M. & G. 807.

5 Bracewell v. Williams, L. R. 2 C. P. 196.

6 Leake, ut supra, citing Richardson v. Mellish, 2 Bing. 244.

no cause of action.1 Hence it has been held in England that promise of forbearance by the assignee of a bond upon which, by reason of equities subsisting between the obligor and the assignor, the assignor had no right to sue, is not a sufficient consideration to support a promise by the obligor, in ignorance of his rights, to pay the bond.2 And, a fortiori, an agreement to take money for abandoning a claim which the party holding knows is unfounded is void as fraudulent and extortionate.3 But the mere fact that a claim has not a strong case to rest on does not preclude it from being the basis of a binding settlement; and this is peculiarly the case with compromises of family disputes.4