Woodward v. Miles
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on an account annexed, consisting of the following items, to wit: “ Sept. 19, 1846. To work on frame of flume in mill, $3.50 Oct. 1846. To work of my son Hazen, three weeks, 8.50 March 26,1847. To two hundred pounds of fish, 6.50 $18.50 ” On the general issue, the defendant admitted that the account was once due.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on an account annexed, consisting of the following items, to wit: “ Sept. 19, 1846. To work on frame of flume in mill, $3.50 Oct. 1846. To work of my son Hazen, three weeks, 8.50 March 26,1847. To two hundred pounds of fish, 6.50 $18.50 ” On the general issue, the defendant admitted that the account was once due. To show payment, he gave in evidence a writ, dated June 8th, 1847, returnable at Coos court of common pleas, November term, 1847, in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, which appeared to have been served, and which contains one count on an account annexed,…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
In the case of Edgerly v. Emerson, 3 Foster's Rep. 555, it was held that receipts may be varied, explained, or contradicted by oral testimony. The same rule was adopted by this court in Wallace v. Rogers, 2 N. H. Rep. 506.
The principal question in the case is, whether the new agreement between the parties, that the defendant should pay and the plaintiff should receive the two thousand feet of- clapboards in payment of the three items of the account now in suit, discharged that account. Such an agreement can only operate to discharge the original cause of action, as an accord and satisfaction.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Tobey v. BarberNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Johnson v. WeedNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Russell v. LytleNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Porter v. TalcottNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Coit v. TracySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.