Case ID: mass_72/html/0239-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Biselow, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Small vs. Thomas Sumner.
    A receipt for “ the amount of net proceeds ” of chattels attached and sold on mesne process, given by the authorized attorney of the debtor to the attaching officer after a discontinuance of the action, is conclusive against the debtor, in the absence of fraud or mistake.
    Action of tort against a deputy sheriff to recover the value of a drove of cattle attached and sold by him as the property of the plaintiff, on a writ sued out by Avery Wellington.
    At the trial in this court, before Thomas, J., it appeared that in that action Wellington became nonsuit, and that Small’s authorized attorney afterwards received of Sumner the sum of ¡¡>786.75, and signed and delivered to him this receipt: “ Boston, 23d March 1849. Received of Thomas Sumner the sum of seven hundred and eighty six dollars and seventy five cents, being the amount of net proceeds of oxen, stock and cattle attached and sold by him upon a writ in favor of Avery Weilington against George Small. Said suit being ended, and the attachment thereby discharged, the proceeds are received, for and in behalf of George Small, by me as his attorney and agent.”
    The defendant contended that this receipt discharged him from all further claim to any damage occasioned by said attachment. In making up the net proceeds mentioned in the receipt, the defendant had deducted from the sum actually received by him certain charges and expenses for keeping the cattle, which the plaintiff now contended were unnecessary. A verdict was taken for the amount so deducted, and the case reported to the full court.
    
      B. Dean, for the plaintiff,
    argued that the receipt was only for so much money, and not a receipt in full; and that if it were, it could not defeat the plaintiff’s right to recover, because payment of part of a demand was not a satisfaction of the whole. Brooks v. White, 2 Met. 283, and cases there cited. Tuttle v. Tuttle, 12 Met. 554.
    
      G. Sparhawk & H. Wellington, for the defendant.
   Biselow, J.

The receipt given by the duly authorized attorney of the plaintiff acknowledges that the net proceeds of the sale of the cattle were paid to him. This settlement was made with a full knowledge of all the facts by both parties. No mistake is shown, and no fraud or deceit is alleged or proved. It was therefore a good accord and satisfaction, and the plaintiff cannot now go behind it, and recover in this action for money to which, after a full and fair settlement, in equity and good conscience he shows no claim.

Verdict set aside; plaintiff nonsuit.

No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in review.

B. Dean, for the defendants in review.