Tompkins v. Hill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, in three counts. The first count was for money had and received to the plaintiff’s use. The second count was for a balance due under an oral agreement. The third count was for a balance found due on an accounting together. Answer : 1. A general denial. 2. Accord and satisfaction. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts, the material parts of which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMortor, 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 Met. 551. Donohue 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…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Ridenour v. H. C. Dexter Chair Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Chamberlain v. BarrowsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Specialty Glass Co. v. DaleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Alliance Ins. Co. v. Alper-Salvage Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927
- Bahrenburg v. Conrad Schopp Fruit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.