The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1899-02-02
Law Court Decision.

Tileston Wadlin, Esq, Clerk of Counts,
has received from the Law Court the GER
titicate of opinion in the case August n.
Anderson assignee, VS.. the Standard Gran
lite Go. The case was opened to the jury
at the September term, 1897, but was
Withdrawn and sent to the Law Caurt on
report. Brown for plaintiff. Dunton for
defendant. The rescript by Judge Wis
well, explains the nature Of the case and
is as follows:
Ii an offer of money is made to one, up
on certain terms aud conditions, and the
party to whom it is offered takes the
money, though without words of assent,
the acceptance is an assent defacto and
he is bound BY it. The acceptance of the
money involves the acceptance Of the con-
dltlon. Under such circumstances the as
sent Of the creditor to the terms proposed
by the debtor will be implied, and no
words OF protest even can affect its result
controversy existed between the
parties S to the amount due the plaintiff
for quantity of granite paving blocks
made by the plaintiff and delivered by him
to the defendant. In the original written
eOdei az tilO PIIC0 w do uAcu DIT Hto per
thousand for blocks to be delivered by
the plaintiff on board vessels at particu-
lar wharf, at which the plaintiff stipulat-
ed that there was certain depth of water
After the first cargo had been shipped
and paid for the defendant complained
that there was not the depth of water at
the wharf that the contract called for, and
that by reason thereof he was put to adj
dltiOnal expense in relation to the first
cargo and could not procure vessels for
subsequent cargOeS at reasonable freight
rates.
Considerable correspondence between
the parties resulted, during which the
president of the defendant company wrote
the plaintiff: You may charter vessel
to your own liking so that the blocks will
not cost me exceeding $5o per M along
side of the dock in Philadelphia exclusive
of insurance. | will insure them myself
You can have chance to get vessel of
the draught you desire, and the size, and
to come on high tide, &C.,
Subsequently, on Nov. %, 1894, the
plaintiff procured a vessel and shipped to
the defendant the cargo of blocks sued
for. On Dec. 20, 1894, the defendant
sent statement of account to the plain
tiff, charging itself with this quantity
OF blocks at S5S per NJ, less SIT per M
freight paid and showing balance due
the plaintiff of 81, O46.67 Accompanying
this statement the defendant sent the
plaintiff check for S1046. 81, which check
contained these words, written into the
body thereof: "Being payment in full
balance for cargo gr paw. blks. per sch.
j. Henry Edmunds, shipped Nov. %,
1894" The plaintiff received this check,
endorsed it and collected the proceeds on
Dec. 25, 1894, and has since retained the
amount.
Held, That the payment by check of
Dec, 20, in view of all of the circumstances
of the case, must be considered full salts
faction of the plaintiffs claim. That the
amount having been offered in full settle
ment, and having been accepted as such,
implicitly at least, the plaintiff cannot
treat this sum as payment pro tanto and
recover the balance as due OH the original
claim, and that under our statute, R. s.,
C. 80, sec. 40, payment so made and &C
cepted is in full satisfaction, whether
the claim is liquidated OF unliquidated.
Judgment for the defendant.