B. Common'Th v. Letcher
| Decision Date | 06 January 1830 |
| Citation | 26 Ky. 195 |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
| Parties | <I>Bank of the Commonwealth</I> <I>vs.</I> <I>Letcher.</I> |
THE bank instituted an action of debt, against the defendants, and William Wilson, upon a note for $400, dated 12th April, 1822, negotiable at the Somerset branch, and payable at one-hundred and twenty days. The suit abated, as to Wilson, by the sheriff's return.
The defendants, the Letchers, plead, that "on the 12th August, 1822, in the regular course of the business and transactions of said bank, the note, in the declaration set forth, being then due, and payable, William Wilson, the principal in said note, offered and tendered, to the said bank, in full satisfaction and discharge thereof, another note, due at four months, with the names of Joseph P. Letcher, and Benjamin Letcher, thereto written and subscribed as securities, for the sum of $384, with the sum of $23 54 cents, call and interest, then due upon said note, so offered, in satisfaction; which last mentioned note and money, the defendants aver, the said bank, on the said 12th day of August, 1822, received in full satisfaction and discharge of the note, in the declaration set forth; and this they are ready to verify, &c." To this plea the bank demurred, and the court gave judgment upon the demurrer, in favor of the defendants: to reverse which, the bank has prosecuted a writ of error, with supersedeas. The only question arises upon the foregoing plea. Is it a good bar to the action.
When this suit was instituted, the note mentioned in the plea, had become due. The names of the same persons, and no other, were to this note, as obligors, which are to the note, upon which suit has been brought. Can the subsequent note (supposing it to be properly executed by the paties) constitute a satisfaction of any part of the first note, and can it be plead as such. It cannot, if the the doctrines of the law, as laid down in Bacon, title, Accord and Satisfaction, sustained by the numerous authorities referred to, are to prevail.
It is expressly said, that "one obligation, given in satisfaction for another, is no discharge, whether grounded upon an accord or not.' A payment of a part, and giving a new note, for the residue, cannot mend it, unless the payment had been made, and new note given, before the first became due; in which case, there might be advantage to the obligee, which ought to support the satisfaction. But when the first note is due, and the whole...
To continue reading
Request your trial