Ex Parte Southern Cotton Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
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
- Fuller v. . KempNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Nassoiy v. . TomlinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Ostrander v. ScottIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Tanner v. MerrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Craft v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Sturdivant v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1940
- Boohaker v. TrottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1962
- Hamilton v. EdmundsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- J. H. Arnold & Co. v. GibsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.