Aborn v. Rathbone

• Decision Date: 17 December 1886
• Citation: Aborn v. Rathbone, 54 Conn. 444, 8 A. 677 (Conn. 1886)
• Parties: ABORN v. RATHBONE.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

8 A. 677

54 Conn. 444

ABORN

v. RATHBONE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 17, 1886.

Appeal from court of common pleas, New London county.

Action for the price of goods sold. Defendant had judgment below.

D. G. Perkins, for appellant.

F. T. Brown, for appellee.

GRANGER, J. The defendant was indebted to the plaintiff, to the amount of 8222, on the first of March, 1881. On that day he gave the defendant the following receipt:

"Norwich, Conn., March 1, 1881. "Received of Mr. Jewett Rathbone one hundred and fourteen 50-100 dollars, account in full to date. A. R. Aborn."

The defendant claimed, and offered evidence to prove, that at the time the receipt was given he offered to pay the plaintiff $100 in cash, and receipt two small hills against him, coming to $14.50, if he would accept it in full, and that the plaintiff accepted it in full, and gave the receipt in question. The plaintiff claimed, and offered evidence to prove, that the payment was made on account only, and a receipt on account given; and that after it was made a person in the defendant's employ came to him, and represented that the defendant wanted a receipt in full, to show to his other creditors as a means of obtaining a more favorable settlement with them, and that it would not affect the plaintiff's claim, but that the defendant would pay the balance; and the plaintiff claimed that this was a fraud upon him on the part of the defendant, as the defendant had no other creditors except his father, with whom he did not attempt to compromise. The plaintiff claimed that the receipt was void, as it had no other consideration than a part payment of the debt, which was insufficient; and that, if otherwise valid, it was rendered void by the fraud of the defendant in obtaining it; and he requested the court to charge the jury in accordance with the claim, if they found the facts claimed by him to have been proved.

The court instructed the jury as follows: "If you find, as claimed by the plaintiff, that this receipt was given solely as a receipt for the money paid on account, and that the plaintiff did not intend and did not execute said receipt to discharge the balance of his account, (unless it was so given to aid the defendant in defrauding his creditors,) then the receipt is no defense to this action, and your verdict should be for the plaintiff. Or if you find that the defendant, intending to defraud the plaintiff, obtained this receipt in the manner claimed by the...