Boston Rubber Co. v. Peerless Wringer Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. Heard on a referee’s report, March Term, 1886, Powers, J., presiding. Judgment for the plaintiff. cited Preston v. Grant, 34 Yt. 201; Dana v. Brigham, 29 Yt. 1; Miller v. Holden, 18 Yt. 341. cited McDaniels v. Lapham, 21 Yt. 222; McDaniels v. Bank of Rutland, 29 Yt. 230; Towslee v. Healey, 39 Yt. 522;' Bromley v. School District, 47 Yt. 381; Donahue v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 148; Potter v. Douglass, 44 Conn. 541.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Taft, J.
Did the transaction between the-parties amount to an accord and satisfaction? What amounts to one is well stated in Preston v. Grant, 34 Vt. 201, viz.: “ To constitute an accord and satisfaction it is necessary that the money should be offered in satisfaction of the claim, and the offer accompanied with such acts and declarations as amount to a condition that if the money is accepted, it is accepted in satisfaction, and such that the party to whom it is offered, is bound to understand therefrom, that, if he takes it, he takes it subject to such…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Preston v. GrantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1861
- Towslee v. HealeySupreme Court of Vermont · 1867
3Cited by4 opinions
- Talbott v. EnglishIndiana Supreme Court · 1901
- Lapp-Gifford Co. v. Muscoy Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Van Dyke v. Wilder & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- Meyer v. Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913