Blanchard v. Edenton Peanut Co.

• Decision Date: 14 September 1921
• Docket Number: 21.
• Citation: 108 S.E. 332,182 N.C. 20
• Parties: BLANCHARD v. EDENTON PEANUT CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

108 S.E. 332

182 N.C. 20

BLANCHARD v. EDENTON PEANUT CO.

No. 21.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 14, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Gates County; Allen, Judge.

Action by M. V. Blanchard against the Edenton Peanut Company. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The fact that a plaintiff's testimony is self-contradictory does not destroy his favorable testimony, but only affects its credibility.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract and loss of commissions growing out of the purchase and sale of certain peanuts during the year 1920.

Plaintiff contends that by agreement he purchased said peanuts as agent for defendant. There was ample evidence tending to show the existence of a contract between the parties and a breach thereof, but defendant pleads in bar a settlement by way of accord and satisfaction.

Plaintiff received from the defendant a statement of his account accompanied by a check to cover the balance as shown upon said statement. This was not posted or mailed, but sent by one L. M. Blanchard, plaintiff's partner in the guano business. Touching the receipt and acceptance of said check the plaintiff testified as follows:

"I did not accept this check in full settlement of the accounts due me. The statement shown me is the one I received along with the check. [ Statement was offered in evidence and bears the notation: "We inclose check to cover."] Mr. L. M. Blanchard handed it to me and said 'Here is what they sent you. I don't know what it is; take it.' I did not know they claimed it to be in full at that time. There is nothing on the face of the check showing or saying that it is in full.

Q. You knew that they claimed it was in full of the balance that they claimed was due you? A. That is what they claimed.

Q. You knew that they claimed this check was to cover all that they owed you up to that date? A. Yes; that is what they claimed, that was all they claimed to owe me.

Court: What do you mean by saying they claimed? A. No; I didn't know that was all they claimed then.

Court: You didn't admit that the check was all, but you knew that was what they claimed it was? A. Yes; but I didn't think that was all they were going to pay me. I was satisfied they would pay me the remainder of it. I knew it was not my fees.

Court: Did you know that they claimed that was in full at that time? A. No, I did not.

Court: You knew that was what they claimed when L. M. Blanchard brought it to you? A. He handed it to me and said: 'Here is what they sent you.' I looked it over, and I think I remarked to him: 'This is not all they owe me.' I thought maybe they would send me some more.

Court: You knew at the time that they claimed that was all that was due you, and you claimed it was not? A. Yes, sir."

At the close of plaintiff's evidence defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit, which motion was allowed, and plaintiff appealed.

A. P. Godwin, of Gatesville, and Ehringhaus & Small, of Elizabeth City, for appellant.

Meekins & McMullan, of Elizabeth City, for appellee.

STACY J.

Considering the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, the accepted position on a motion to nonsuit, we think the question of settlement by way of accord and satisfaction sufficiently ambiguous to require the aid and verdict of a jury.

Under a uniform construction of our statute, C. S. § 895, as announced in a long line of decisions, it is held with us that where two parties are in dispute as to the correct amount of an account, and one sends the other a check, or makes a payment, clearly purporting to be in full settlement of the claim, and the other knowingly accepts it upon such condition, this will amount to a full and complete discharge of the debt. Mercer v. Lumber Co., 173 N.C. 49, 91 S.E. 588; Aydlett v. Brown, 153 N.C. 334, 69 S.E. 243; Kerr v. Sanders, 122 N.C. 635, 29 S.E. 943, and numerous cases of like import. The law as it prevails in this jurisdiction is succinctly stated by Mr. Justice Hoke in Rosser v. Bynum & Snipes, 168 N.C. 340, 84 S.E. 393, as follows:

"It is well recognized that when, in case of a disputed account between parties, a check is given and received, clearly purporting to be in full or when such a check is given, and from the facts and attendant circumstances it clearly appears that it is to be received in full of all indebtedness of a given character, or all indebtedness to date, the courts will allow to such a payment the effect contended for"--citing a number of authorities, and this has been approved in the recent case of Supply Co. v. Watt, 181 N.C. 432, 107 S.E. 451.

The case of Ore Co. v. Powers, 130 N.C. 152, 41 S.E. 6, chiefly relied on by defendant, is not at variance with the rule above stated, nor is it more favorable to defendant's contention, for, as appears from the last paragraph of the opinion in that case, the check in question was sent in full settlement of account, and this condition was annexed to its acceptance. An examination of the original papers discloses this fact more clearly than is shown by the report as published.

But it is equally well established that unless the intention of the parties, as gathered from the facts in evidence, is so clearly apparent as to admit of no doubtful inference or uncertain conclusion, among men of fair, disinterested, and unbiased minds, the issue must be referred to a jury. This position is well stated in Mercer v. Lumber Co., supra, as follows:

"It is the well-recognized principle here and elsewhere that when a dispute exists between two parties as to the amount of an account. and one sends another a check or makes a payment clearly purporting to be in full settlement

...