Saunders System Washington Co v. Kuffener, 929.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 929.,929. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SAUNDERS SYSTEM WASHINGTON CO., Inc., v. KUFFNER, and to Use of ALLIANCE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA. |
William H. Clarke, Washington, D. C., Richard W. Galiher and William E. Stewart, Jr., Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellee.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.
Saunders System, hereafter called Saunders, rented an automobile to Barbero who, contrary to the express terms of the rental agreement, turned the automobile over to Breese. While the automobile was being operated by Breese, it struck the parked car of Kuffner, damaging it to the extent of $1,124.77. Kuffner and his insurance company made claim on Saunders for the damages. After some negotiations toward settlement, Kuffner sued both Saunders and Breese. The claim against Saunders was stated in the alternative, first in tort and second in contract. The basis of the contract claim was an alleged agreement of compromise made between the attorneys for Kuffner and Saunders.
The case was tried without a jury. The trial court found that Breese's negligent operation of the automobile caused the damages and that he was liable therefor. A judgment for Kuffner against Breese for $1,124.77 was entered. The court further found that Breese's operation of the automobile was without Saunders' consent and that Barbero had no authority from Saunders to turn the car over to Breese, and accordingly that Saunders was not liable to Kuffner under our Owners' Financial Responsibility Act.1 A judgment in Saunders' favor on the tort claim was entered.
With respect to the contract claim, the trial court found that Kuffner and Saunders through their respective attorneys arrived at a compromise by which Saunders agreed to pay $1,112.81 in monthly installments of $300, that Saunders had breached the agreement and made no payments, and that Saunders was liable to Kuffner in said amount of $1,112.81. Judgment for that amount was entered against Saunders, and this appeal by Saunders relates to that judgment alone.
Plaintiff's right to prosecute in one action both his original tort claim and his claim on the compromise agreement, without electing between them either before or at trial, has not been questioned. And no contention is made that prosecution of the tort claim accomplished a rescission or abandonment of the compromise agreement. Accordingly we do not pass on those questions.2
The substance of the argument on appeal is that the court was in error in finding that a compromise agreement had been reached between the parties. Whether such agreement existed was a question of fact. The only evidence on the subject was the testimony, of two attorneys. Both attorneys agreed that an offer was made by Saunders to pay $800 in settlement and that this offer was rejected. Kuffner's attorney testified that after rejection of the $800 offer, he offered to accept $1,112.81 which was arrived at by deducting an item of $11.96 from the full amount of the damages;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
4934, INC. v. DIST. OF COL. D. OF EMP. SERV.
...for compromise and settlement. Rommel v. West American Insurance Co., 158 A.2d 683, 685 (D.C.1960); Saunders System Washington Co. v. Kuffner, 75 A.2d 136, 137 (D.C.1950). There is, however, a limitation on that rule: the claim foregone must be "advanced in good faith and ... not obviously ......
-
Friedman v. Clark
...Statute must be affirmatively pleaded as a defense. Cavalier v. Weinstein, 80 A.2d 918 (D.C.Mun.App.1951); Saunders System Washington Co. v. Kuffner, 75 A.2d 136 (D.C.Mun.App.1950). The result would not, however, have been different had the Statute of Frauds been raised as a defense below. ......
-
Bullard v. Curry-Cloonan
...law, constitutes good and valuable consideration. Rommel v. West American Insurance Co., supra at 684; Saunders System Washington Co. v. Kuffner, D.C. Mun.App., 75 A.2d 136, 137 (1950); Magruder v. National Metropolitan Bank, supra at Appellant's contention — that appellee's forbearance of ......
-
Hackney v. Morelite Const.
...may be lost if it is not affirmatively pleaded. Cavalier v. Weinstein, D.C.Mun.App., 80 A.2d 918 (1951); Saunders System Washington Co. v. Kuffner, D.C.Mun.App., 75 A.2d 136 (1950); Super.Ct.Civ.R. There are several situations where courts may refuse to allow the defendant to interpose a st......