Normandin v. Gratton
Oregon Supreme Court
Action upon an account stated and also upon a promissory-note from defendant to plaintiff which had matured prior to the date of said settlement. The answer admitted the settlement, but alleged payment, and further “that at the date of the account stated of July 31, 1883, the note was-long past due.” On the trial the defendant showed payments of money to the plaintiff exceeding the amount of his demands.
Read the full summary
Action upon an account stated and also upon a promissory-note from defendant to plaintiff which had matured prior to the date of said settlement. The answer admitted the settlement, but alleged payment, and further “that at the date of the account stated of July 31, 1883, the note was-long past due.” On the trial the defendant showed payments of money to the plaintiff exceeding the amount of his demands. The plaintiff being called in rebuttal was asked to “ state whether or not the note in controversy was included in the account stated of July 31, 1883,” and also “was it (the payments above…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
The question asked and answered by the witness was evidence tending to rebut the presumption of the settlement alleged, including all demands between the parties, and was admissible. It is conceded that a settlement between the parties is prima fade to be taken as a settlement of all demands, but is not conclusive, and is no bar to a recovery for. matters not included in the settlement, though existing at the time. (Nichols v. Scott, 12 Vt. 47; Ryan v. Rand, 26 N. H. 15.) The object of the question was to show that the matter referred to was not included in the--account stated, and thus rebut…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nichols v. ScottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1840
3Cited by2 opinions
- Harrison v. BirrellOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- O'Day v. SpencerOregon Supreme Court · 1920