Mohn v. Stoner
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Des 3Ioines District Court Replevin for eight thousand oak staves cut by plaintiff on defendant’s land, for which defendant was to be paid five dollars per thousand. Some testimony was introduced at the trial showing a payment of part of the contract price and tending to show a tender of the balance.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Des 3Ioines District Court Replevin for eight thousand oak staves cut by plaintiff on defendant’s land, for which defendant was to be paid five dollars per thousand. Some testimony was introduced at the trial showing a payment of part of the contract price and tending to show a tender of the balance. The court instructed the jury: “ If plaintiff offered to pay defendant the amount and defendant refused to receive it, the effect of such refusal would be the same as payment.” Defendant asks the following instruction: “ There was no tender unless the money so tendered was in court…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
It was said by this court in Barker v. Brink, 5 Iowa 481, that payment implies an appropriation of that which is offered by one party to the other; while tender is the act of one party in offering that which he admits to be due and owing, but which is not accepted by the other. The tender does not discharge or satisfy the debt, while payment does. And see Johnson v. Triggs, 4 G. Greene 97, where it is said that a tender docs not satisfy the demand, but if kept good, and is sufficient in amount, it stops interest and saves costs. See also Freeman v. Fleming, 5 Iowa 460.
In Johnson v. Triggs,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Freeman v. FlemingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
- Barker v. BrinkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hayward v. MungerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863
- Shugart & Lininger v. PatteeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Voss v. McGuireMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Hill v. RolfsemaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1939
- Mohn v. StonerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1862
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.