Johnson v. Shuford

• Decision Date: 27 July 1916
• Citation: 98 A. 333
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHNSON v. SHUFORD.

98 A. 333

JOHNSON

v. SHUFORD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 27, 1916.

Appeal from City Court of New Haven; John R. Booth, Judge.

Action by Charles B. Johnson against John F. Shuford. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

In November, 1914, the defendant was engaged in the business of repairing automobiles in the city of New Haven. About this time he sold and delivered to the plaintiff a Stoddard Dayton automobile for $300 upon the following terms and conditions: The defendant was to accept from the plaintiff a certain Maxwell automobile of the agreed value of $100; $75 in cash was to be paid at the time of the sale, and the plaintiff was to give his promissory note for $125, payable in 90 days and renewable for like periods, upon payments of $25 at each renewal until the whole amount of $125 was paid. The plaintiff, in pursuance of this agreement, delivered to the defendant the Maxwell automobile, paid the defendant $75 in cash, and executed and delivered to the defendant his promissory note for $125. On February 8, 1915, the note of the plaintiff became due and he paid $25 on account of it, and executed and delivered to the defendant a new note for $100 in compliance with the agreement. Between February 8, 1915, and April 12, 1915, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to take the Stoddard-Dayton automobile back and to return to him the $100 he had paid thereon, in addition to the sale price of $100 agreed upon for the Maxwell automobile, and also to save the plaintiff from any-further liability on account of his note of February 8, 1915, for $100. In pursuance of this agreement, the plaintiff returned and the defendant took back the Stoddard-Dayton automobile and subsequently sold the same and retained the proceeds. The defendant also saved the plaintiff from further liability on account of the note for $100. On April 12, 1915, the defendant paid the plaintiff $25 in pursuance of their agreement. The balance of $75 due the plaintiff, upon the money paid by him to the defendant on account of the Stoddard-Dayton automobile, and the $100 due to the plaintiff from the sale and delivery of the Maxwell automobile to the defendant, has not been paid the plaintiff, although demand has been made on the defendant therefor. On April 12, 1915, the defendant represented to the plaintiff that he needed some evidence to show that he owned both the Stoddard-Dayton and the Maxwell automobiles. Whereupon the plaintiff executed and delivered to the defendant the following instrument:

"New Haven, Connecticut, April 12, 1915. "Received of John Shuford $200 in full for one Stoddard-Dayton car.

"[Signed] Charles B. Johnson."

This instrument was not given because of the payment of any money to the plaintiff by the defendant, but was given for the sole purpose of furnishing evidence to the defendant of his ownership of this automobile, which might aid him in the sale of the same.

Samuel Campner, of New Haven, for appellant. George W. Crawford, of New Haven, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. (after stating the facts as above). One question of law raised by the defendant's appeal relates to the effect of the receipt for $200, which purports to be in full payment for the Stoddard-Dayton car. The defendant contends that this document was conclusive evidence of payment. Such is not the law, under the facts disclosed by the record now before us. The receipt was prima facie evidence of the fact of payment, but was not conclusive that the plaintiff had received the $200. It was proper for him to offer parol evidence to vary or contradict the admission of payment contained therein. Holmes v. Brooks, 84 Conn. 512, 515, 516, SO Atl. 773. A receipt is an admission only and the general rule is that an admission, though evidence against the person who made it, is not conclusive except as to the person or persons who may have been misled or prejudiced by it. Clark v. Macdermott, 82 Conn. 572, 573, 574, 74 Atl. 686.

The trial court has found that this instrument was not given because of the payment of any money to the plaintiff, but that, as claimed by the plaintiff, it was given for the sole purpose of aiding the defendant in the sale of the Stoddard-Dayton automobile after it had been taken back by him. There was ample evidence to support such a finding, and it does not appear that the defendant was in any way misled or prejudiced by the execution and delivery of this document....