Case Name: Adolph G. E. Hanke, Respondent, v. Richard C. Patterson and Another, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-05-04
Citations: 205 A.D. 349
Docket Number: 
Parties: Adolph G. E. Hanke, Respondent, v. Richard C. Patterson and Another, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 349–352

Head Matter:
Adolph G. E. Hanke, Respondent, v. Richard C. Patterson and Another, Appellants.
First Department,
May 4, 1923.
Release — defendant had right to show that release was in full where plaintiff had shown all other facts relating to agreement — action on notes given in accord and satisfaction ratified accord.
Where the plaintiff interposed a release in evidence and proved all the facts relating to the agreement with the exception that it was in full of all claims or demands, the defendant had the right to show what the complete agreement was, and, therefore, the agreement was properly admitted in evidence in this case and was a complete defense.
The fact that the defendant did not pay the notes given under the agreement when due did not affect the force of the accord and satisfaction, since the plaintiff waived any objection in that respect and ratified the accord when he sued, and obtained satisfaction when he collected the money on the notes in a prior action. Smith, J., dissents, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, Richard C. Patterson and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 30th day of January, 1922, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 2d day of February, 1922, denying defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Samuel Wasserman, for the appellants.
Andrew A. Fraser, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Finch, J.:
In the opinion of Mr. Justice Smith it is stated that, if the plaintiff himself had introduced the release in evidence, even though not pleaded, it would be a complete defense to the action. It appears, however, in the record that the attorney for the plaintiff elicited from the plaintiff on his direct examination all the facts in connection with the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant Patterson, Sr., except the fact, which the plaintiff wished to exclude, that the agreement was " in full of all claims or demands." By so doing the plaintiff opened the door for the defendants to show what the complete agreement was, and hence this agreement was properly admitted in evidence, and, as stated by Mr. Justice Smith, is thus a complete defense. The respondent urges that, as the defendants did not pay the notes when due, therefore, there was no accord and satisfaction. Plaintiff, however, waived any objection on this score and ratified the accord when he sued, and obtained satisfaction when he collected the money on the notes.
As the defendants did not renew their motion to dismiss at the close of the whole case, this court is limited to granting a new trial.
It follows, therefore, that the judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.
Clarke, P. J., Page and Merrell, JJ., concur; Smith, J., dissents.