Hull v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 27 April 1900
• Citation: 46 A. 182,22 R.I. 66
• Parties: HULL v. JOHNSON et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

46 A. 182

22 R.I. 66

HULL

v. JOHNSON et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 27, 1900.

Action by Samuel F. Hull against H. A. Johnson & Co. for a balance due on an account for services. Judgment for defendants.

Ballou V. Tower, for plaintiff. Cooke V. Angell, for defendants.

STINESS, J.The plaintiff did work for the defendants as a carrier, for which a balance of $58.48 was due. In the course of his service, in 1895, the defendants sent him a lease of an oven, with instructions to take it. By the agreed statement of facts it appears that he lost possession of the lease, and thereupon the defendants claimed that he was liable to them for its value, $50. The plaintiff denied his liability, and the matter rested until their settlement in August, 1898, when the above balance was due on the plaintiff's account in settlement of this balance the defendants sent a check for $8.48 to the plaintiff and a receipt for the $50, both under cover of a letter in which the defendants said: "We hereby tender our check for the balance due on your account, which we trust will be satisfactory." On the back of the check these words were stamped: "Good only if when properly indorsed in full of all demands to date against H. A. Johnson & Co." The plaintiff took the check, struck out these words, deposited it on his account, and it was paid, through clearing, six days later, at the National Eagle Bank in Boston, on which it was drawn. On that sixth day the plaintiff returned the receipt for "loss of lease," and notified the defendants that he did not recognize his liability, and credited them with the $8.48 on account. On these facts the defendants claim an accord and satisfaction.

A tender upon a condition is not good as a tender, and payment of a less sum than is due, on an undisputed claim, even though it be offered in full settlement does not bar a recovery for the balance. So far the parties to this suit agree, but, the sum tendered having been accepted, and the amount due being in dispute, the question arises whether, under these facts, the parties made a settlement. Upon this question the great weight of authority is in the affirmative. The law favors the settlement of controversies, and so holds that an offer of money made and accepted on that condition binds both parties. The rule had its origin in cases of unliquidated claims where the settlement was in the nature of a compromise, but it has been extended to all cases of dispute where an offer of settlement has been made, and an acceptance signified by taking the money so offered, The law leaves the parties where their acts have put them. The principle on which the rule is founded is that one who takes money offered on condition thereby accepts the condition, and, in the absence of fraud or other excuse, he is bound by his act. In this case, although the notice stamped on the back of the check is somewhat vague, we think it clearly meant, and must have been understood to mean, that the check was good only if it was accepted in full of all demands against the defendants. The plaintiff therefore received it coupled with the condition. Cases upon this subject are fully stated in an exhaustive note to Fuller v. Kemp (N. Y. App.) 20 L. ft. A. 785 (s. c. 33 N. E. 1034), and need not be repeated. We will refer only to a few recent cases which bear upon the questions arising under the peculiar facts of this case. The first is whether the...