Sec 503

When a seaman is bound by his contract of service to serve for a particular voyage, a promise to increase his wages, unless there is increased duty or hazard, does not bind the promisor.2 It is otherwise, however, if the promise is made in consideration of increased peril and labor under circumstances which would have justified the seaman in throwing up the contract.3

Sec 504

On the same reasoning, part payment of a liquidated debt is no consideration for a promise from the creditor to the debtor in all cases where the debt is at the time due and payable.4 Hence, as between debtor and creditor alone (the element of reciprocal release by other creditors, the one in consideration of the other, not coming in), the payment of one the examining court, and conducts the prosecution there. He does the same thing sometimes at the request of a citizen, without any expectation on his part to receive, or on the part of the citizen to pay, compensation for the services. We cannot say, looking to the facts stated in this answer, that there was an implied contract on the part of the company to pay Lee compensation for his services. The further proposition is urged by the counsel for the company that even an express agreement to pay would have been void as contrary to public policy. But upon that question we express no opinion."

Promises to seamen of increased pay not ordinarily binding.

Part payment of a debt no consideration for a promise by creditor to debtor.

1 Loan Ass. v. Stonemetz, 29 Penn. St. 534. See as to extra pay, infra, sec 720. That agreement to pay public officer private remuneration is invalid, see supra, sec 413.

2 Supra, sec 499; and see, also, Leake, 2d ed. 621; Stilk v. Myrick, 2 Camp. 317; Frazer v. Hatton, 2 C. B. N. S.

512; Harris v. Carter, 3 E. & B. 559; Bartlett v. Wyman, 14 Johns. 260; The Brookline, 8 Bost. L. Rep. 70.

3 Hartley v. Ponsonby, 7 E. & B. 872; see Clutterbuck v. Coffin, 4 Scott N. R. 509; Newman v. Walters, 3 B. & P. 612; see 2 Ch. on Con. 11th Am. ed. 61.

4 Met. on Con. 191; Leake, 2d ed. 619; Cumber v. Wane, 1 Str. 426; S. C. in 1 Smith's Lead. Cas. 7th Am. ed. 595; Jones v. Waite, 5 Bing. N. C. 341; Orme v. Golloway, 9 Ex. 544; Baillie v. Moore, 8 Q. B. 489; Bailey v. Day, 26 Me. 88; White v. Jordan, 27 Me. 370; Smith v. Bartholomew, 1 Met. 278; Warren v. Hodge, 121 Mass. 106; Warren v. Skinner, 20 Conn. 559; Pabodie v. King, 12 Johns. 426; Watts v. French, 19 N. J. Eq. 407; Daniels v. Hatch, 1 Zab. 391; McKenzie v. Culbreth, 66 N. C. 534; Pearson v. Thomason, 15 Ala. 700; Carraway v. Odeneal, 56 Miss. 223; and see cases cited infra, sec 935, 996, 1000 et seq.

part of a debt is no consideration for a promise not to sue on the other part.1 And hence, also, payment of the principal of a note is not in itself a sufficient consideration for a promise to pay the interest.2 At the same time, as has been noticed and will hereafter be seen more fully, the surrender by one party of any vantage ground is a sufficient consideration for a counter promise from the other party;3 and this is the case, also, with the giving of any security which the creditor did not before possess. Hence an accepted draft for a part of the debt will be a consideration for the release of the rest;4 and so will the note of a third person;5 and so of a guaranty of a third person;6 and so of a specific article or bonus received in satisfaction.7 It has also been held that payment before maturity may be a good consideration for a reduction of the debt.8 And a payment of a smaller sum in cash may be a sufficient consideration to support a promise to satisfy an unliquidated claim for a larger amount.9 - In what cases a payment amounts to accord and satisfaction is hereafter independently discussed.10

1 Infra, sec 935, 996 et seq.; Fitch v. Sullen, 5 East, 230; Down v. Hatcher, 10 A. & E. 121; Smith v. Page, 15 M. & W. 683; Goodwin v. Follett, 25 Vt. 386; Harriman v. Harriman, 12 Gray, 341; Bunge v. Koop, 48 N. Y. 225; Line v. Nelson, 9 Vroom, 358; Rising v. Patterson, 5 Whart. 319; see Jen-ness v. Lane, 26 Me. 475.

2 Willis v. Gammill, 67 Mo. 730.

3 Infra, sec 534 et seq., 852 et seq.; Brooks v. White, 2 Met. Mass. 283; Kellogg v. Richards, 14 Wend. 116; Harper v. Graham, 20 Ohio, 105.

4 Infra, sec 953 et seq., 1003; Sibree v. Tripp, 15 M. & W. 23; Frisbie v. Larned, 21 Wend. 450; Douglass v. White, 3 Barb. Ch. 621; Milliken v. Brown, 1 Rawle, 391; Reid v. Hibbard, 6 Wis. 175.

5 Hinckley v. Avey, 27 Me. 362; Brooks v. White, 2 Met. Mass. 283; Kellogg v. Richards, 14 Wend. 116; Sanders v. Bank, 13 Ala. 353; infra, sec 954.

6 Lewis v. Jones, 4 B. & C. 506; Little v. Hobbs, 34 Me. 357; Kellogg v. Richards, 14 Wend. 116; Bliss v. Swartz, 7 Lans. 186; Maddux v. Bevan, 39 Md. 485.

7 Infra, sec 1006; Co. Lit. 212 b; Pinners case, 5 Coke, 117; Met. on Con. 191; Blinn v. Chester, 5 Day, 359; Boyd v. Hitchcock, 20 Johns. 76; Kellogg v. Richards, 14 Wend. 116; Mc-Kenzie v. Culbreth, 66 N. C. 534; Sanders v. Bank, 13 Ala. 353; and cases cited infra, sec 1000 et seq. Whether a seal makes a difference has been already considered. Supra, sec 495.

8 Infra, sec 1001-3; Pinnel's case, 5 Coke, 117; Brooks v. White, 2 Met. 283; Bowker v. Childs, 3 Allen, 434; Arnold v. Park, 8 Bush, 3; Rose v. Hall, 26 Conn. 392; Smith v. Brown, 3 Hawkes, 580; and see cases cited infra, sec 1002.

9 Infra, sec 521 a, 935, 1000.

10 Infra, sec 996 et seq.