Title: Butler v. GAB Business Services, Inc.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

416 So. 2d 984 (1982)
Hoyt BUTLER
v.
GAB BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., et al.
81-269.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 25, 1982.
*985 J. A. Hornsby, Gadsden, for appellant.
C. William Gladden, Jr. of Balch, Bingham, Baker, Hawthorne, Williams & Ward, Birmingham, for appellees.
SHORES, Justice.
Plaintiff/appellant Butler sued Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Inc., GAB Business Services, Inc., and Roy Kuykendall, charging the defendants with having committed various forms of tortious conduct in connection with an alleged fire loss on his house.
After the case had been pending for some time, Pennsylvania General and the plaintiff reached an agreement under which Pennsylvania General would pay the plaintiff $8,175.00. The trial court entered a "Consent Pro Tanto Judgment," which contains the following language:
It is not disputed that this judgment has been paid and that the plaintiff has received the money.
Thereafter, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that satisfaction of the judgment constituted a discharge of the plaintiff's claims against them. The trial court granted the motion. We affirm.
*986 As the trial court correctly observed, this case is controlled by Maddox v. Druid City Hospital Board, 357 So. 2d 974 (Ala.1978). In that case, the plaintiff sued Druid City Hospital Board and Parke-Davis and Company, Inc. A settlement was reached between the plaintiff and the hospital. Based upon the settlement agreement, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the hospital in the amount of $4,500. The judgment entry expressly provided that issues as to defendant Parke-Davis were to be preserved. The money was paid into court and the plaintiff satisfied the judgment. This court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Parke-Davis, saying through the late Justice Bloodworth:
357 So. 2d  at 975-976.
The plaintiff in this case attempts to distinguish Maddox by arguing that the judgment against Pennsylvania General has not been satisfied. We cannot agree. It is undisputed that it has been paid and that the plaintiff has received the money. Whether a formal entry of satisfaction has been entered on the record cannot make a distinction in the rule announced in Maddox. Payment of a judgment is satisfaction thereof.
The parties here could have entered into a pro tanto release agreement and preserved the claims against GAB and Kuykendall. Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2 (1927); see, also, Conley v. Harry J. Whelchel Company, 410 So. 2d 14 (Ala. 1982). Such a release operates only as satisfaction pro tanto, but the acceptance by the plaintiff of payment of a judgment discharged those claims.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.