Case Name: WOERNER v. McINTYRE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-03-05
Citations: 109 N.Y.S. 57
Docket Number: 
Parties: WOERNER v. McINTYRE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 109
Pages: 57–58

Head Matter:
WOERNER v. McINTYRE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 5, 1908.)
Appeal and Ereob—Review—Conflicting Evidence.
The decision of the trial court on conflicting evidence that the account sued on was not included in a receipt in full will not be disturbed on appeal.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, §§ 3983-3989.]
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourteenth District.
Action by Albert M. Woerner against Thomas A. McIntyre. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and BISCHOFF and MacLEAN, JJ.
Ormiston & McCormack (T. S. Ormiston, of counsel), for appellant.
Gavegan & McQuaid (Joseph L. Dougherty, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
GILDERSLEEVE, P. J.
The trial justice gave plaintiff judgment for $117.50 and costs. The defendant appeals.
Upon the settlement of a disputed claim, made by plaintiff against the defendant, the plaintiff received a check for $518.36 and gave a receipt reading: "February 2, 1907. Received payment in full to date." This receipt was written at the bottom of a long itemized bill amounting to $5,651.06. The claim in suit is for labor furnished in November, 1906, and was not among the items on the above-mentioned bill. The defense is accord and satisfaction. It is the plaintiff's contention that at the time he gave the receipt this item of $117.50 was expressly reserved for consideration thereafter. This is the sole issue in the case. Upon conflicting testimony the learned trial justice decided in favor of the plaintiff, and I find no reason for disturbing the judgment.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
BISCHOFF, J., concurs.