Tompkins v. Hill

• Decision Date: 05 December 1887
• Citation: 14 N.E. 177,145 Mass. 379
• Parties: TOMPKINS v. HILL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

145 Mass. 379

14 N.E. 177

TOMPKINS v. HILL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

December 5, 1887

COUNSEL

C.H. Sprague, for defendant.

The plaintiff knew, or should have known, when he received the letter, account, and check, that the defendant offered the check to the plaintiff in full settlement of the account and all items therein. Donahue v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 150; Sutton v. Hawkins, 8 Car. & P. 259.

The plaintiff, having accepted the check, must be considered to have accepted it as was offered; that is, in full settlement of the account, and all the items therein. Tuttle v Tuttle, 12 Metc. 551; McGlynn v. Billings, 10 Vt. 329; McDaniels v. Lapham, 21 Vt. 222; Reed v. Boardman, 20 Pick. 441; Riggs v. Hawley, 116 Mass. 596; Bull v. Bull, 43 Conn. 455; Towslee v. Healey, 39 Vt. 522; Gordon v. Cox, 7 Car. & P. 172; Cheminant v. Thornton, 2 Car. & P. 50; Peacock v. Dickinson, Id. 51.

As the account contained an item in dispute, the acceptance of the check was a final settlement of all matters in the account even though the amount of the check was only that which the defendant admitted he owed. Hastings v Thorley, 8 Car. & P. 573; Scott v. Warren, 2 Lans. 49; Ogborn v Hoffman, 52 Ind. 439; Potter v. Douglass, 44 Conn. 541.

The principle involved and the policy of the law is the same in this case as in those cases where it is held that "where a person pays a disputed claim, he cannot recover back the amount paid, though he did not owe it."

L.L Scaife, for plaintiff.

OPINION

MORTON, C.J.

If a creditor, having an unliquidated or disputed claim against his debtor, accepts a sum smaller than the amount claimed, in satisfaction of the claim, he cannot afterwards maintain an action for the unpaid balance of his original claim. Tuttle v. Tuttle, 12 Metc. 551; Donahue v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 148. This proceeds upon the ground that the parties have agreed to settle an unliquidated or disputed claim, or, in other words, have agreed to an accord and satisfaction of such claim.

In the case before us, the facts agreed do not show any such accord and satisfaction. The plaintiff had a claim against the defendant for one-third of the net profits of an enterprise in which they were jointly engaged. He sent a letter requesting the defendant to render an account. The defendant in reply, sent a letter inclosing an account in which he credited the plaintiff with one-third of the profits, and charged him with an item of $260 claimed to be due for the defendant's services, and also inclosing a check for the balance of the account thus stated. The plaintiff credited the check to the defendant on account, but he did not agree to accept it in satisfaction of his claim. On the contrary, he forthwith demanded payment of the said amount of $260 of the defendant, and upon his refusal...