Case Name: STEWART v. SAYBROOK TOWNSHIP
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-08
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 374
Docket Number: 
Parties: STEWART v. SAYBROOK TOWNSHIP.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 374–375

Head Matter:
STEWART v. SAYBROOK TOWNSHIP.
Trustees witnesses — accord and satisfaction — receipt of treasurer — evidence of payment.
The trustees of townships, though parties to the suit in their official capacity, are competent witnesses, if they have no individual interest in the controversy.
Accord and satisfaction is admissible in evidence under the general issue in assumpsit.
The receipt of the treasurer of a corporation as money, is prima facie evidence of payment to that amount.
Error to the Common Pleas. The record shows that the proceedings were brought into the Court of Common Pleas on a certiorari to a justice of the peace, and the cause being docketed under the statute, the plaintiff declared in assumpsit. On the trial, the court admitted as witnesses for the defendant, two of the trustees of the township,who were objected to by the plaintiff The court, in like manner, admitted evidence for the defendant, to prove that there was a subsequent agreement to take five dollars, which was less than the sum due, in satisfaction, and the payment of that sum. Exceptions were sealed to thesei admissions, and it is assigned for error, that the evidence was improperly admitted. There was judgment for the defendant.
Whittlesey and Newton, for the plaintiff in error.
Giddings and Wade, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Wright, J.
Were the trustees illegally admitted to testify for the defendants? In The Methodist Church of Cincinnati v. Wood, 5 O.R. 284, this Court expressly decided that members of a public corporation, though parties to the record, are competent witnesses, if they have no individual interest. That is the same question decided by the Common Pleas.
Was the evidence of the accord and satisfaction admissible under the general issue? We have no doubt it was. But, it is said, there is no evidence of payment; or, if so, it was of less sum than was due. The receipt of the treasurer as money, is money quoad the amount expressed in it. Whether it satisfied the whole debt, or only part of it, is a question not presented on this record.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.