Case ID: wis_164/html/0159-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ViNJE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Morgenthaler and another, Respondents, vs. Somers, imp., Appellant.
    
      October 4
    
    October 24, 1916.
    
    
      Accord and satisfaction: Promise and performance: Evidence.
    
    1. Where, a claim based on contract being controverted, the parties agreed that upon payment of a certain sum in cash or upon the delivery of a bankable note for such sum by defendant the dispute should be settled, but thereafter the defendant refused to carry out such agreement, there was no accord and satisfaction and the settlement agreement was no defense to an action on the original claim.
    2. Had the settlement agreement been such that plaintiff accepted the mere promise of defendant to pay a certain sum in full accord and satisfaction, then only an action on that promise could be maintained.
    3. It was not error in such case to admit evidence of conversations between plaintiff and an agent who had acted for defendant in the transaction, relating either to what the settlement agreement was or to the question whether it had been executed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: W. J. TueNee, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action to recover the purchase price of $1,702.83 of certain crockery sold the defendant, together with: the cost of storage, insurance, and interest. The part of the answer material to the issues litigated is as follows:
    “That on the 27th of July, 1914, plaintiffs made claims .against the defendant Somers and alleged in substance the facts alleged in the complaint as entitling them to money from the defendant as demanded in the complaint, and that the defendant denied justice of plaintiffs’ claim and objected thereto. That thereupon it was agreed between defendant and plaintiffs that the controversy should be settled and compromised upon the terms that plaintiffs should retain possession and title to the merchandise described in the complaint and defendant should pay plaintiffs one third of the amount of the plaintiffs’ demand for merchandise contained in the plaintiffs’ complaint and the sum demanded by the plaintiffs for storage and insurance upon tbe goods. That tbis agreement still remains in force and effect and that tbe defendant bas been at all times and still is ready and willing to pay tbe amount stipulated by tbe contract of compromise and- settlement.”
    One H. B. Harvey acted as agent for tbe defendant Somers in tbe transaction.
    Tbe jury found (1) that E. W. Morgenthaler and H. B. Harvey did on or about July 27, 1914, enter into an agreement by wbicb, upon tbe payment of tbe sum of about $600 in cash or upon tbe delivery of a bankable note for a like amount signed by Charles W. Somers, tbe parties to tbis case would settle tbe dispute between them; (2) that tbe defendant Somers through bis agent, Mr. II. B. Harvey, refused to carry out tbe agreement of settlement wbicb was made by Mr. Morgenthaler and Mr. Harvey on tbe 27th of July, 1914.
    There being no dispute as to tbe correctness of tbe original invoice, storage, interest, and insurance, judgment on tbe verdict for $1,901.23 and costs was entered in favor of tbe plaintiffs and against the defendant Somers. As to the other defendants the complaint was dismissed with costs. Somers appealed.
    Eor tbe appellant there was a brief by Quarles, Spence & Quarles, and oral argument by Louis B. Montfort.
    
    For tbe respondents there was a brief by Doerfler, Creen & Bender, and oral argument by Christian Doerfler.
    
   ViNJE, J.

In addition to tbe questions set out in tbe statement of facts tbe special verdict contained tbis unanswered question: “Did H. B. Harvey and E. W. Morgenthaler, on or about July 27, 1914, agree that, upon tbe promise that Som-ers would pay $600 in cash, tbe plaintiffs would settle their cause of action?” It will thus be seen that tbe issue as to whether tbe agreement was to accept tbe promise of Somers' to pay $600, or to accept that amount in cash or a bankable note signed by Somers, was squarely put to tbe jury and that tbey found, as contended by plaintiff, that tbe agreement was tbat $600 in cash should be paid or Somers’s bankable note for a like amount should be given in lieu of tbe original contract. Such finding is sustained by tbe evidence. Tbat being so, tbe original contract remained in force till tbe $600 was paid or tbe bankable note tendered. There must be both accord and satisfaction. 1 Corp. Jur. 567. Bouvier defines accord and satisfaction as “An agreement between two parties to give and accept something in satisfaction of a right of action which one has against tbe other, which when performed is a bar to all actions upon this account.” 1 Bouv. Law Diet. (Bawle’s 3d Eev.) 103. In this case tbe jury found tbe substituted agreement was unperformed — hence it constituted no satisfaction and no bar to an action founded upon tbe original contract. Had tbe jury found, as contended by defendant Somers, tbat plaintiffs accepted tbe mere 'promise of Somers to pay $600 in full accord and satisfaction, then only an action upon such substituted agreement could be maintained.

Error is assigned because tbe court admitted conversations between plaintiff and Harvey subsequent to tbat of July 27, 1914. Harvey dealt with Somers at Cleveland and such conversations related either to Harvey’s refusal to pay or give a note signed by Somers or to other replies which Harvey received from Somers at Cleveland. We perceive no error in tbe reception of such evidence, as it related either to what such alleged compromise agreement was or whether or not it bad been executed.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.