Pruden v. Asheboro & M. R. Co

• Decision Date: 23 November 1897
• Citation: Pruden v. Asheboro & M. R. Co, 28 S.E. 349, 121 N.C. 509 (N.C. 1897)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: PRUDEN v. ASHEBORO & M. R. CO.

28 S.E. 349

121 N.C. 509

PRUDEN

v.ASHEBORO & M. R. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 23, 1897.

Accord and Satisfaction—Compromise of Disputed Claim.

In an action to recover an alleged balance on a contract for grading a railway roadbed, it appeared that, on failure of the parties to agree on the amount due, plaintiff offered to take $3,000 in payment, as a compromise, which offer was at first declined, but afterwards accepted by telegram, which plaintiff answered, directing the sending of the amount. Defendant sent plaintiff checks aggregating $3,000, with a receipt to be signed and returned, describing such checks, and reciting that the sum named therein was in full payment for the work. Plaintiff retained the checks, and signed and returned the receipt, after adding thereto a statement that such settlement was made on the basis of a final estimate, and stating the amount of work done. Held, that the transaction constituted a contract, by which plaintiff was bound, as a compromise in full satisfaction of his claim.

Appeal from superior court, Randolph county; Coble, Judge. Action by J. T. Pruden against the Asheboro

& Montgomery Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order overruling a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Douglass & Holding, for appellant.

J. T. Morehead, for appellee.

FURCHES, J. The plaintiff had a contract with the defendant to grade its roadbed from Star to Asheboro. The plaintiff did the work, and defendant paid plaintiff thereon the sum of $7,744.48, leaving an admitted balance still due the plaintiff. But they differed as to this amount, as the plaintiff contended that the estimates were to be made by one rule and the defendant contended they were to be made by another. The plaintiff contended that the work of grading amounted to $12,620.04, and that the amount still due him was the difference between $12,620.04 and $7,744.48; while the defendant contended that the whole work done by the plaintiff did not amount to so much as plaintiff claimed. The parties finding that they could not agree upon the amount still due, terms of compromise were discussed, and the plaintiff offered to take $3,000 in payment for what was still due. But the defendant declined this proposition, and the plaintiff left without any terms being agreed upon. After plaintiff had left, the defendant caused the following telegram to be sent to the plaintiff: "J. T. Pruden, Care No. 7 cd.: A. F. Page feels that he has conceded enough in settlement with you, but, in order to settle the matter, and avoid any further trouble on our part we hereby agree to your proposition, paying you a balance of $3,000 in full for balance due. Answer, if satisfactory. [Signed] Page Lumber Company, "—to which plaintiff replied by telegram, as follows: "Page Lumber Co.: Message received. Send checks to Asheboro. [Signed] J. T. Pruden." In reply to this, defendant sent the following telegram to J. T. Pruden: "Please say by wire if checks for $3,000 will be received by you as payment in full. [Signed] Page Lumber Co." On the back of this telegram was the following indorsement, admitted to be genuine, and made by J. T. Pruden when he answered the telegram: "Ans. That was what I meant. [Signed] J. T. P." The telegram itself was as follows: "P. L. Co.: Ans. That was my proposition. Send checks and receipt shall follow. [Signed] ...