Harrison v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 06 June 1903 |
| Docket Number | 12,988 |
| Citation | 72 P. 875,67 Kan. 194 |
| Parties | T. W. HARRISON v. HARVEY HENDERSON, as Administrator, etc |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1903.
Error from Shawnee district court; Z. T. HAZEN, judge.
STATEMENT.
HENDERSON was a resident of Pittsburg, Pa., and was appointed administrator of the estate of Samantha Johnson, deceased, by the court there. As such administrator he had for collection two notes secured by mortgages in Topeka. He employed Harrison, who is an attorney residing in Topeka, for the purpose of collecting these notes by foreclosure. The account growing out of that relationship continued from May, 1894 until March, 1898, during which time the administrator remitted various sums of money to apply on fees and expenses and Harrison made collections, so that, all together, there came to the latter's hands $ 1210. He expended various sums in payment of taxes, etc., and on March 10, 1898, made a statement to Henderson of the account embracing these expenditures and charges for attorney's fees, in the total sum, as then claimed by him, of $ 739.20, and on that date, as shown by this account, struck a balance of $ 470.30 and remitted the same by draft. This draft was drawn to Harrison's order and indorsed by him: "Pay Harvey Henderson, administrator estate of Samantha Johnson dec'd, bal." He sent it to Henderson accompanied by a letter in which he said: "I enclose you statement in the Samantha Johnson estate matters and draft on N. Y. for balance of $ 470.30 on that matter." This draft Henderson collected, but, refusing to consider it as a payment in full, in September, 1899, he brought this action on an account for moneys had and received, giving therein credit for the expenditures, $ 125 as attorney's fees and the amount of the remittance, and prayed judgment for a balance of $ 366. Harrison answered, setting up the facts relative to the remittance as hereinbefore mentioned, and pleaded the same as an accord and satisfaction. Plaintiff replied, admitting the receipt of the statement, but denied the correctness of the account as pleaded by the defendant. The matter was referred by consent to the Honorable J. D. McFarland to report on the facts and the law. Upon the hearing before the referee the entire matter as to the correctness of the charges made by the defendant Harrison for his services as attorney was gone into and evidence heard. The referee reported that the charges made by Harrison were excessive, and that he owed to the plaintiff the sum of $ 235, with interest from September 9, 1898, and, as a conclusion of law, he found:
"The retention and collection of the draft for $ 470.30 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff March 10, 1898, together with the letter and statement therewith, were not, under the facts of this case, an accord and satisfaction, or settlement of the matters between plaintiff and defendant mentioned in said statement, and do not bar the plaintiff from recovering any sum that otherwise would be due him on account of said matters."
This report of the referee was confirmed by the district court over the objections of the defendant and judgment rendered thereon. Harrison is now here seeking a reversal of the same.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION -- Definition. An accord and satisfaction is the adjustment of a disagreement as to what is due from one party to another and the payment of the agreed amount.
2. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION -- "Balance" not Conclusive. The mere payment by a debtor of an amount denominated a "balance" upon an account rendered and its retention by the creditor do not constitute an accord and satisfaction.
3. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION -- Requisites Stated. To constitute such payment an accord and satisfaction, it must be offered as full satisfaction of a claim, and accompanied by such declarations, or under such circumstances, as would amount to a condition that, if accepted by the creditor, it would be in full satisfaction of the debt.
T. W. Harrison, Welch & Welch, and D. T. Gregg, for plaintiff in error.
A. F. Williams, and Eugene Hagan, for defendant in error.
OPINION
There are two questions raised by the plaintiff in error. The first is on the facts, it being claimed that the report of the referee and judgment of the district court are not binding upon this court; that, as all of the evidence introduced before the referee is in the record here, we may look into it as though we were trying the case de novo, and that upon doing so we will come to a conclusion different from that of the referee and trial court. Granting that the findings of the referee and their approval by the district court are not binding here, we have looked into the evidence enough to enable us to conclude that the findings are fully warranted thereby, and are such as meet with our approval.
The main contention in the case is that there was an accord upon, and a satisfaction of, the demands arising between the parties in this case; that inasmuch as the account submitted on the 10th day of March, 1898, struck what was denominated therein as a "balance," and as the indorsement upon the draft indicated that it was for such "balance," and as the letter accompanying the same contained the suggestion that a "balance" was therein remitted, as a matter of law Henderson could not accept such draft under these circumstances and afterward claim a further payment. An accord is an agreement, an adjustment, a settlement of former difficulties, and presupposes a difference, a disagreement, as to what is right. A satisfaction, in its legal significance in this connection, is a performance of the terms of the accord; if such terms require a payment of a sum of money, then that such payment has been made.
In this case there is no evidence of any disagreement between the parties prior to the sending of the account and remittance accompanying it. Plaintiff in error contends, however, that because such remittance was denominated a "balance" its acceptance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Western Union Telegraph Company v. Arkadelphia Milling Company
...... agreed to receive the same in full payment of the amount due. it. Greer v. Laws, 56 Ark. 37, 18 S.W. 1038; Harrison v. Henderson, 67 Kan. 194,. 72 P. 875. The agreed statement of facts, taken as a whole,. shows that the appellant was not conceding its liability ......
-
Ex parte Southern Cotton Oil Co.
...ipso facto as a full satisfaction. Hand Lbr. Co. v. Hall, 147 Ala. 563, 41 So. 79; Brackin v. Owens, 195 Ala. 579, 71 So. 97; Harrison v. Henderson, supra; Fuller v. 138 N.Y. 231, 33 N.E. 1034, 20 L. R. A. 785, 805; 1 Corp. Jur. 558, § 81, and cased cited in note 62. In the instant case the......
-
Prather v. Colorado Oil & Gas Corp.
...sums of money due or for money previously earned, whose value is not disputed, is not an estoppel in every case. (Harrison v. Henderson, 67 Kan. 194, 72 P. 875.) Mr. Prather's statement that the check was not intended to constitute a release and that it was not accepted as a release must be......
-
Frazier v. Ray
...opinion. Innumerable cases could be cited to sustain the rule. We think, however, the following are sufficient: Harrison v. Henderson, 67 Kan. 194, 72 P. 875, 62 L.R.A. 760, 100 Am.St.Rep. 386; Neeley v. Thompson, 68 Kan. 193, 75 P. 117; Johnston v. Burnett, 17 Cal.App. 497, 120 P. 436; Sta......