Case Title: Design Engineering Corporation v. Jenkins

Citation: 396 P.2d 590, 74 N.M. 603

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1964-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
396 P.2d 590 (1964) 74 N.M. 603 DESIGN ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby E. JENKINS and Dee L. Stevenson, Defendants-Appellants. No. 7516. Supreme Court of New Mexico. November 9, 1964. David G. Housman, Albuquerque, for appellants. C. LeRoy Hansen, Alfred H. McRae, Albuquerque, for appellee. COMPTON, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a summary judgment. On May 8, 1962, the parties entered into an agreement whereby appellee was to perform engineering and architectural services for the appellants. The contract includes a clause which reads: Subsequently, on December 28, 1962, the appellee served the appellants with a demand for arbitration, asserting that disputed questions under the contract had arisen between the parties. The demand listed the questions in controversy thusly: An arbitrator was selected and a hearing was scheduled by him. Before proceeding to a hearing on the questions raised, appellants moved for a dismissal of the hearing on the basis of accord and satisfaction by reason of the notation appearing on the *591 voucher type check for $7,500.00 delivered to appellee. The notation reads: The motion was denied and a complete hearing was conducted by the arbitrator at which the appellants testified at length, examined and cross-examined witnesses with regard to the amount in controversy and the circumstances under which the notation on the check was made. The arbitrator determined all issues in favor of appellee and made the award complained of and, upon appellants refusal to pay, this action was brought to enforce the award. It is appellants' contention that acceptance of the check bearing the notation constitutes accord and satisfaction of the indebtedness allegedly due; and that accord and satisfaction could not become a disputed question under the contract. They claim further that since accord and satisfaction raises an issue of material fact, it cannot be determined by summary judgment. The trouble with the position taken by appellants is that the issue of accord and satisfaction was submitted to, heard and disposed of by arbitration. By participating therein they effectively submitted the question of accord and satisfaction, and are conclusively bound by the award. In Forrest v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc., 193 Cal. App. 2d 503, 14 Cal. Rptr. 349, quoting from its earlier case of Dugan v. Phillips, 77 Cal. App. 268, 246 P. 566, the court said: Compare Robinson v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 70 N.M. 215, 372 P.2d 801; Moore v. Collins, 24 N.M. 235, 173 P. 547; Samincorp South American Minerals & Merchandise Corp. v. Lewis, 337 Mass. 298, 149 N.E.2d 385; Forrest v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc., supra; Dugan v. Phillips, supra; Lipman v. Haeuser Shellac Co., Inc., 289 N.Y. 76, 43 N.E.2d 817, 142 A.L.R. 1088. It is our conclusion that since the issue of accord and satisfaction was submitted, the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered. CHAVEZ and NOBLE, JJ., concur.