Ness v. Minn. & Colo. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 November 1902
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: NESS v. MINNESOTA & COLORADO CO.

87 Minn. 413

92 N.W. 333

NESS

v.MINNESOTA & COLORADO CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 21, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; David F. Simpson, Judge.

Action by Sjur P. Ness against the Minnesota & Colorado Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. There can be no accord and satisfaction of a disputed claim unless something of legal value has been received in full payment thereof, to which the creditor had no previous right.

2. Where payment of a sum admitted to be due to a creditor for work and labor and for money paid out is made upon condition that he receipt in full for all accounts, claims, and demands, such receipt is without consideration and of no validity as to a previously existing disputed claim for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract. Alvord C. Egelston and Egelston & Johnson, for appellant.

R. J. Powell and A. Y. Merrill, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

It is undisputed that when defendant paid plaintiff, by check, the sum of $139.50, this amount was made up of three items: One, $12.50 for 2 1/2 days' labor in the month of July under the alleged contract for 70 days' employment, which plaintiff claimed had been violated by his having been improperly and unlawfully dismissed from defendant's service; another, $124 for labor in August and September under a subsequent contract, concerning which there had been no contention; third, $3 cash paid out at defendant's request, also undisputed. Before making this payment, and as a condition thereof, defendant company demanded, and plaintiff was compelled to give, a receipt in full for all claims and accounts. He had previously and at the time insisted that defendant had violated its contract to give him employment for 70 days, and that he was entitled to damages for this violation; the measure of such damages being the agreed per diem compensation, the value of his board, and cost of transportation to his home, less what he had been able to earn after his dismissal and during the balance of the time defendant had agreed to employ him. The court below found that this receipt, in the nature of an accord and satisfaction, was wholly without consideration, and, as a consequence, of no validity. This was correct. There was no controversy at all between the parties over these items, and no difference of opinion as to plaintiff's right to recover $139.50. He had worked 2 1/2 days prior to his dismissal, for which he had not been paid; and defendant conceded that he was entitled to $12.50 for this work, and also entitled to $124 for work subsequently performed under the second contract, and $3 for cash expended, making a total of $139.50. The only dispute was as to plaintiff's right to recover an amount, in addition to this, as damages for a breach of an alleged contract. The defendant refused to pay anything on account of this claim for damages, and paid no...