Il6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, demurrer) that " no money was due the plaintiff from the Hondu- ras government," but it was held that the forbearance, notwith- standing, was a good consideration for the promise; Cockburn, C. J., saying, ** When a person forbears to sue he gives up what he believes to be a right of action, and the other party gets an ad- vantage, and, instead of being annoyed with an action^ he escapes from the vexations incident to it." Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ., concurred. Judgment for the plaintiff. In this case the plain- tiff had no legal cause of action against ^;{y oiiey which is still stronger than Cook v. Wright. The same principle was approved and acted upon in Rue v. Meirs.-^ In Ockford v. Barelli,^ the plaintiff had married the defendants' father while his first wife was still living, though supposed to be dead. Upon the subsequent death of her de facto husband, she made a claim, as widow, for a third of his estate, believing that she was lawfully entitled to it. Thereupon the defendants, heirs to the estate, gave her the following agreement : " In consideration of your abstaining from making, and forbearing to make, any claim against our late father's estate, we hereby respectively undertake to pay you over one third of the net value and proceeds of the estate up to the time of his decease." Upon the authority of Cal- lisher v, Bischoffsheim, the forbearance was held a good consider- ation for the promise, after a full argument and citation of the authorities by the Court of Exchequer. It is not easy to recon- cile this case with Palfrey's case, before cited. In Miles v. New Zealand Alford Estate Co. ,3 the cases of Cook V. Wright, Callisher v. Bischoffsheim, and Ockford v. Barelli, were distinctly approved in separate judgments by Cotton, L. J. (p. 282), by Bowen, L. J. (p. 291), and by Fry, L. J. (p. 297) ; and the doc- trine is declared that a bona fide compromise of a real claim is a good consideration, whether the claim would have been successful or not. If a creditor honestly, though erroneously, supposing his claim is not yet barred by the Statute of Limitations, proposes to sue it and the debtor writes him, '* Your claim is too old, but it will cost me fifty dollars to defend a suit, and if you will forbear to bring suit, I will pay you twenty-five dollars for such forbearance," and the creditor does so, can he not recover the twenty-five dollars? 1 43 N. J. Eq. 377 (1887). 8 32 Ch. D. 269 (1886). 2 25 L. T. Rep. 504 {187 1) ; 20 W. R. 116.
