Charles R. Crosby's Admrs. v. Charles H. Naatz

Decision Date06 November 1924
Citation126 A. 547,98 Vt. 226
CourtVermont Supreme Court

May Term, 1924.

ACTION OF CONTRACT. Pleas, general issue, payment, and accord and satisfaction. Trial by Brattleboro municipal court, A. P Carpenter, Judge. Judgment for plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

W W. Reirden for the defendant.

Robert L. Fitts for the plaintiffs.



The administrators of the estate of Charles R Crosby are seeking to recover for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The trial was by court, and the plaintiffs had judgment on the facts found. The case is here on the defendant's exception to the judgment, and the only question raised is whether on the findings he should have prevailed on his plea of accord and satisfaction.

The defendant lives at South Newbury, Vermont, and in the lifetime of Mr. Crosby acted as his agent in the grain and feed business at that place. After Mr. Crosby's death in May, 1921, the defendant acted as the agent of the administrators in disposing of the stock on hand, which consisted of flour, grain, stock food, and similar goods of various kinds. This relation continued until September 17, 1921, when the defendant purchased the balance of the stock on hand. An invoice was made showing the quantity and price of each article and the defendant agreed to pay for the goods purchased the amount of the invoice, $ 1,378.28. A payment was made on account leaving a balance due of $ 641.21. Subsequently, there was deducted from this balance $ 307.19, which was allowed the defendant for services and expenses. December 23, 1921, the defendant sent the plaintiffs a check of $ 184.14, for which he had a credit, leaving $ 149.88 still unpaid. The plaintiff's specification was a copy of the invoice with the credits mentioned above, and the judgment was for the balance with interest and costs.

The claim of accord and satisfaction rests upon these facts: Under the last named date the defendant wrote the plaintiffs in substance that he had about $ 300.00 worth of the goods on hand and would consider it a favor if they would let him ship them "in car with mixed feed. I will load mixed feed just as soon as I can get to it." Reference was made to some stationery that was not included in the invoice, which the defendant states he had not received, though plaintiffs had several times promised to ship it, and that he was going to Brattleboro at the first opportunity to "see if we cannot get this misunderstanding cleaned up." The defendant also referred to his services and expenses in closing out the business and making collections for the plaintiffs and stated in conclusion, "I was instructed to add this to my salary. This I have done and do not think I have been excessive. However just as soon as I get a chance I am coming down to have a reckoning. I will write more fully when I get time." The letter contained this statement: "Attached is adjustment between us, also check for $ 184.14." The statement referred to bore the caption, "Settlement of a/oc between C. H. Naatz and E. H. Crosby Co." and started with the original balance due the plaintiff on the invoice, $ 641.21. There was deducted the amount allowed the defendant for services and expenses, $ 307.19, and various items for goods, principally cereals and mixed feed, leaving a balance of $ 184.14 which was offset by the entry "check to bal a/oc $ 184.14." The check which accompanied the statement and letter was made payable to the estate and bore on its face, "bal a/oc." The plaintiffs used the check and gave the defendant credit for it on account. At some time soon after the receipt of the check, in a telephone conversation the plaintiffs claimed the defendant was still owing a balance on account and the defendant maintained that he was not. The defendant did not return to the plaintiffs the mixed feed and other articles, the price of which had been deducted from the agreed balance in making up the statement accompanying the letter and check.

It must be held that the findings do not support a valid accord and satisfaction. The defendant argues that the case falls within the rule applicable to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • J. A. Greenwood v. Primus P. Lamson
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • November 7, 1933
    ... ... judgment. Crosby's Admrs. v. Naatz, 98 ... Vt. 226, [106 Vt. 42] 229, 126 A. 547; ... ...
  • Noe Duchaine v. M. G. Zaetz
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 2, 1945
    ... ... Lisman for the defendant ...          Charles ... F. Black and J. H. Macomber, Jr., for the ... judgment rendered. Crosby's Admrs. v ... Naatz, 98 Vt. 226, 229, 126 A. 547; Royal Bank ... ...
  • George D. Nelson Et Ux. v. State Highway Board
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 4, 1938
    ... ... 37, 41, 168 A. 915; Crosby's ... Admr. v. Naatz, 98 Vt. 226, 229, 126 A. 547; ... Royal Bank of Canada v ... ...
  • Hammonds, Inc. v. C. E. Flanders
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1937
    ... ... 102, ... L.R.A. 1918A, 1056; Crosby's Admrs. v ... Naatz, 98 Vt. 226, 126 A. 547. If this notation ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT