Case ID: ohio-np_8/html/0022-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dempsey, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(Sup. Court of Cin.,
    General Term, 1899.)
    M. J. RICHMOND ET AL. v. STANDARD OIL CO.
    
      Parties are not absolutely bound by an account stated—
    Evidence tending to show that there is one item in an account stated which, it had been agreed, should be withdrawn, for future settlement, and that debtor’s bookkeeper, who acquiesced in the account as stated, had no authority to 0 so, is admissible in an action upon such account.
    Error to special term.
    This suit was on what purported to be a stated account. The defendant below offered testimony to the effect that there was one item which, it had been agreed, should be withdrawn from the account, for some future settlement, and also that the account was acquiesced in by their bookkeeper, who was without authority so to do. This testimony the trial judge refused to admit, on the ground that all parties were bound by the account as stated.
    
      Shay & Cogan, for Plaintiff in Error.
    
      Stallo Richard & Shaw, contra.
   Dempsey, J.

The reviewing court holds that the testimoney was competent and it was error to exclude it.

Judgment reversed.