Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-01-26
An;on aud dispatch.
SATURDAY. JANUARY aS. 1867.
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COTRT.
Knoxville, Team, september Term,

IN iNluIf9 A0E lDfit aNlttfM ana aAAlalufALnu Nf
/ one Of the trespassers i release Of all.
This suit was brought By the defendant
/ in error against plaintiff in error and a
/ number Of others i'm the Circuit Court Of
I Bradley, by summons. Auxiliary attach-
ments we're sued ont at the time Of the IS
suance Of the summons and we're levied
/ upon the property Of plaintiff in error and
I other defendants who Bere declared against
in the defendants declaration. At the Sep
TENDER term 1866, the defendant fled his
| declaration; in which be states the plaintiff
in error and other defendants IN che suit
90 wit Levi G. Hoyt Russell Lawson.
Silss Wayne, isaac Wayne, John Cruize,
Henry Kinser and Joseph Tucker willful-
", maliciously, and wickedly, without
cause. arrested him, or caused him to be
arrested and imprisoned for long space
Of time, 10 Wit the space of - months,
| whereby he Wasiniured, etc, etc
Al the September term. 1865, mol pros.
were entered "a 10 all the ether descendants
not declared against. At the same term
the plaintiff in error a. a me other defend
ants filed their pleas lst. Plea not guilty /;
"a. Plea Of accord band satisfaction which
| in substance states, that the defendant in err
| TOR received from Jacob DeatheroW one
hundred dollars in cash, and the promis-
sorry note Of said Deatherow for three hun
| dred dollars in full satisfaction Of the tres
pass committed, etc.
At the January term, 1866, the plaintiffs
in error, by leave ofthe court filed smother
plea Of accord and satisfaction, ia which
they state the defendant IN error, since the
commencement Of the suit, received from
the other defendants who were sued for the
Joint trespass alleged 10 have been commit
ted, the sum Of twenty-six hundred dollars,
in full discharge for the said several tres
passes supposed 10 have been committed,
and this was in satisfaction Of the injury
done him, costs, etc, to which plea n repli-
cation was filed. A this term, mol pros.
was entered to all the other defendants in
the cause except plaintiffs in error. At the
May term, 1866, the cause was submitted
TO Jury. The facts necessary to be stated
are The defendant in error was arrested
or caused to be arrested, by the plaintiffs
in error and the other defendants, TO the
suit TO which nOl pros. have been entered,
was taken 10 Mobile and Tuscaloosa, and
imprisoned for length oftime. and suffered
great priyations and wrong Upon his
release from prison he returned, and the
suit was commenced against the plain
tiff in error and the other defendants. Rus
sell Lawson, who was sued with the plain
titls in error, agreed TO give the defendant
in error three hundred dollars, in satisfac-
ton of the damages defendant had Fus-
tanned; he executed his note 10 the defend
an, in error for that sum, which was re-
ceived and transferred hy the defendant in
error, and on which he had been sued be-
fore Justice Of the Peace and stayed
When he settled, there was nothing said
about any one else. lie received il in sat-
isiaction Of the damage done him. He
said in the conversation there were some
he would not take less than one thousand
dollars from. Witness was not concerned
in his arrest; he paid for the damages
claimed in the suit alone for himself ia
cob Deatherow, who was sued, paid the de
PENDANT ia error one hundred dollars in
cash, and gave him his note for three hum
dred, which he afterwards paid in full sat-
isfaction for the damages claimed by de-
PENDANT in error against him Henry Kim
ser paid the defendant in error two hun
bred dollars for himself and son who was
sued, in notes, in full satisfaction Of the
damages Of defendant In error against them.
The counsel for the plaintiffs in error re-
quested the court TO charge the Jury "if the
defendant in error after the commencement
of the suit received one hundred dollars in
money and the note of Russell Lawson for
three hundred dollars, in satisfaction for
| the damages sued for in the declaration, 30
far as said Lawson was concerned, and if
ne received from John Deatherow, one Of
the defendants originally sued in this ac-
ton, four hundred dollars in satisfaction of
the damages sued for az to him, and if he
received from Henry Kinser, another Of the
defendants originally sued in this action,
his note for two hundred dollars in salts
| faction for the injuries sued for in this de-
/ claration as to him and his son, such an
accord and satisfaction with any one Of the
| Joint trespassers originally sued, would be
an accord and satisfaction as to all the
| trespassers sued in this action, and would
bar the suit as to them, whether the plain
| tiff intended or not 10 receive IL in satisfac-
iioh as to all. The court declined to give
the instructions, but charged the jury as
/ follows
On this point it has been insisted on the
part of the defendants, that ii YOU should
| be satisfied that the defendants are Jointly
liable as the plaintiff in declaring hath
alleged against them, you should find for
the defendants, because they say they have
made fall and complete accord and salts.
faction. Ii such q thing has been done,
this is a correct assumption. Ii you are sat.
s6ed from the proof that such accord and
| satisfaction has been made, you should find
| Tor the defendants, for in this form of action
| the plaintiff cannot have but one satisiac-
| ton. This. however, you must determine
from The proof before You. Ii an agree
ment was made between the parties that q
| compromise was 20 be made, and that agree
meni has been fully carried ont and per
formed. il would be a satisfaction but ii
they met together and agreed to compro-
mise aud settle the cause now before YOU
and that agreement was not fully carried
cut and completed, it would not be a full
accord and satisfaction as 60 this YOU
have heard the proof aud must decide ioI
| yourselves
A verdict and Judgment was rendered
| against the plaintiffs in error for thirty-fve
| thousand dollars new trial was moved
| for. which was oyerruled, from which Their,
| was an appeal in this court; various ones
! lions were insisted on in argument in the
| trial OF the cause, but the principle ques
ton relied upon, and presented for our con
sideration il, do the facts presented in thi
record amount 90 an accord and satisfaction
/ and such AZ will bar the defendant in erro
from recovery.
Il appears from the testimony of one O
the witnesses, Russell Lawson, when h
settled with the defendant in error, nothinI
was said relative 20 the other Joint defend
ants. In the conversation of the delendau
I'm error. he said that he would not com
promise with some of them for less than
thousand dollars He SAYS that he com
promised for himself The other partie
, who compromised state that they comprC
missed lor themselves alone.
The money received by the deieudaH
in error, e. appears from the proof, wa
three hundred dollars from one, four hur
dred from another. two hundred irom an
other. These sums were received in iu
satisfaction of the damages the deteuGar
p IN error claimed agaius! them. They wer
| originally sued inthe action. Two OF ther
/ were declared against in the declaration Z
! The defendant IN error they we're all Join
tre4paasera with the plaintiffs in error, an
| liable with them in damages for the iniur
inflicted upon the defendant IN error. Ipo
F.. the compromise or payment Of the dan
ages. a 1ol pros was entered az to them an
{ | all the other defendants in the declaraio
2 except the plaintiffs in error. whether b
% reason oi the compensation paid or no
does not appear.
Three who compromised and paid OF
T. were before the court by summons and lev
OF attachment The ofense was just on
b. a. the defendant in his declaration ha
Be alleged. What is the legal effect Of q