St. Pierre v. Peerless Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1914
• Citation: 92 A. 840,77 N.H. 599
• Parties: ST. PIERRE v. PEERLESS CASUALTY CO.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

92 A. 840

77 N.H. 599

ST. PIERRE

v. PEERLESS CASUALTY CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Coos.

Dec. 1, 1914.

Transferred from Superior Court, Coos County; Sawyer, Judge.

Assumpsit by A. A. St. Pierre against the Peerless Casualty Company on a contract to indemnify plaintiff against loss of time from accidental bodily injury. Trial to court, and verdict and judgment rendered for defendants, subject to exception, and case transferred to Supreme Court. Exceptions overruled.

The plaintiff, having suffered injury, furnished the defendants satisfactory proof, in which he claimed $82.50 for six weeks' total disability. The defendants sent him a check for $61.50, with a letter stating that payment was allowed for only four weeks' total disability, with two weeks' partial disability. Upon the face of the check was a printed statement that the same was "in full and final settlement for all claims originating prior to the date hereof," and upon the back was a "receipt and indorsement" acknowledging the full satisfaction of all claims. The plaintiff collected the check, and two days later requested further payment. The court found that the plaintiff was totally disabled for six weeks, and that he accepted payment in accordance with the terms of the check and the indorsement thereon. A verdict was entered and judgment rendered for the defendants, subject to exception.

Ovide J. Coulombe, of Berlin, for plaintiff.

Allen & Faulkner, of Keene, and Rich & Marble, of Berlin, for defendants.

PARSONS, C. J. No question of law is presented. Whether, in accepting and collecting the defendants' check, the plaintiff assented to the defendants' proposition that the money so received should be deemed to be in full settlement of the claim is a question of fact, not of law. Pike v. Buzzell, 75 N. H. 486, 76 Atl. 642, s. c, 76 N. H. 120, 79 Atl. 992. The fact being found that the plaintiff accepted the defendants' payment in accordance with the terms of the check and the printed indorsement, it would be useless to consider whether the evidentiary facts reported are, as matter of law, inconsistent with the opposite conclusion. Neither fraud nor mistake is charged. The verdict and judgment for the defendants are the legal results of the findings of fact.

Exception overruled. All concur.