Case Name: Lawrence W. Ahrens et al., Resp'ts, v. The United Growers' Company, App'lt
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-01-12
Citations: 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 91
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lawrence W. Ahrens et al., Resp’ts, v. The United Growers’ Company, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 65
Pages: 91–92

Head Matter:
Lawrence W. Ahrens et al., Resp’ts, v. The United Growers’ Company, App’lt.
(New York City Court, General Term,
Filed January 12, 1895.
1. Accord and satisfaction—Receipt.
A receipt is not an accord and satisfaction.
3. Evidence—Letter.
A letter, written by a party, is not admissible in his own behalf.
3. Same—Contract.
In an action for services under a contract, evidence as to other work performed by the plaintiff is admissible.'
Appeal from a judgment entered by the direction of the court, And from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
George W. Carr, for app’lts; M. S. & I. S. Isaacs, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Fitzsimons, J.
The quality of envelopes and circulars ordered from plaintiffs by defendant, and the prices therefor, as the evidence shows, were in dispute. The plaintiffs' and defendant's statements concerning that phase of this litigation were correctly submitted to the jury. . They decided in plaintiffs' favor, and there is ample evidence justifying their finding. The quesiton at. folio 100 was perhaps wrong in form, but the answer shows what the receipt in full was for, and plaintiffs had a perfect right to-explain the meaning of the receipt referred to. Such a receipt may always be explained.
• The letter referred to in appellants' second point was rightfully excluded. Defendant had no right to create evidence in its favor in that way. Again, the court was justified in refusing to permit the defendant to introduce in evidence other work done by plaintiffs for it. The question was, did they perform their contract in thisinstance? The receipts, because they read "in full payment," etc., for that reason cannot be said to be an accord and satisfaction of plaintiffs'claim. They'can be explained as before stated. There was a sufficient offer of delivery of the goods in question, and also a sufficient demand, as the evidence shows. As to the preponderance of testimony, I think the jury was right in determining that it was in plaintiffs' favor. The whole appeal record shows that the judgment was a fair one, and it is affirmed, with costs. All concur.