The composition made by the defendants with their creditors, was in effect, if not in express terms, conditional. The creditors agreed, not to release absolutely and immediately, but to “ accept in full satisfaction ” the debt- or’s notes for forty cents on the' dollar," payable, one half in three and the other half in six months. They could not accept the notes unless they were tendered. No tender was made, neither during the time the notes were to run, nor at any time. How, then, can the defendants, upon any principle, either of law or equity, claim to be released from sixty per cent.' of the debt—a release, the right to which depended on their giving, at least, if not paying, the notes. From some cause, which the subsequent assignment probably explains, they would seem (as
As to the assignment subsequently executed, it contained no stipulation for a discharge. On the contrary, it provided for an equal pro rata distribution of the assigned assets, and 'for the payment, if sufficient, of “ all the debts and liabilities in full.” It was executed moreover before the notes, if given, would have become due—and is conclusive evidence, therefore, that the debtors had abandoned all idea of continuing their business, or of availing themselves of the plaintiffs’ proffered liberality. They divested themselves by the act, of all means of paying the notes, if given.
The eighty dollars accepted under the assignment operated only as so much received on account; and judgment must accordingly be entered for the full balance of the original debt, with interest and costs. (Good agt. Cheeseman, 2 Barn. & Adolphus, 328; Cranley agt. Hilliary, 2 Maule & Sel. 120.)