Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Southern Cotton Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 30, 1922No. 3 Div. 578PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

1. It is a well-settled rule of the common law that ‘‘the payment of an amount less than that for which the debtor is liable does not. constitute a valid accord and satisfaction, unless there is a bona fide dispute or controversy as to the debtor's liability, or as to the amount due from him, or unless the damages are unliq-uidated.” 1 Corpus Juris, 554, § 74. This rule is of course qualified in this state by section 3973 of the Code, which provides that — •

“all receipts, releases, and discharges in writing * * * must have effect according to the intention of the parties thereto.” Hodges v.…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Fuller v. . KempNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Nassoiy v. . TomlinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
  3. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  4. Ostrander v. ScottIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Tanner v. MerrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1895

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1929
  2. Sturdivant v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
  3. Boohaker v. TrottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1962
  4. Hamilton v. EdmundsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  5. J. H. Arnold & Co. v. GibsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API