Case Name: Prairie Grove Cheese Manufacturing Company, Appellant, vs. Luder, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1902-06-19
Citations: 115 Wis. 20
Docket Number: 
Parties: Prairie Grove Cheese Manufacturing Company, Appellant, vs. Luder, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 20–27

Head Matter:
Prairie Grove Cheese Manufacturing Company, Appellant, vs. Luder, Respondent.
January 30 — February 18, 1902.
May 16
June 19, 1902.
Justices’ courts: Jurisdiction: Action on express contract or on account? “Balance due:” Settlement: Acceptance of part of amount due.
1. An action to enforce payment upon a valid contract of sale of certain definite articles at an agreed price is1 an “action arising or growing out of an express contract,” within the meaning of suhd. 1, sec. 3572, Stats. 1898; and the fact that the goods were delivered in instalments, and a record kept thereof in the form of an account, does not make the action one “founded on an account,” under subd. 3 of said section. Nimmick v. Math-iesson, 32 Wis. 324, distinguished.
2. The words “balance due” in subd..l, sec. 3572, Stats. 1898, mean merely the remainder after deducting proper credits, and not necessarily a balance agreed upon by the parties.
3. The amount due on a contract being undisputed, the mere acceptance by the creditor of a check for a smaller sum, containing the words “paid in full today, eight hundred and ninety-one and 21-100,” did not, in the absence of any consideration for a release of the balance, operate as a settlement or an accord and satisfaction.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: Robeet G. SiebbcKER, Circuit Judge.
Unversed.
Tbe plaintiff, a domestic corporation, sued tbe defendant in justice’s court for a balance alleged to be due of $68.98 upon tbe sale of 8,729 pounds of cheese at eleven cents per pound. Tbe defendant filed a general denial and pleaded payment.
Tbe evidence upon tbe trial before the justice showed that on December 11, 1899, tbe plaintiff bad on band at its factory* eleven tubs of September cheese, which was slightly damaged, and on that day made an oral sale thereof to the defendant at eleven cents per pound; that the defendant bad previously examined the cheese, and knew its condition, but that the same had not been weighed; that the cheese was afterwards delivered by tbe plaintiff to the defendant one or two tubs at a time, as ordered, tbe last delivery being made and accepted on tire 20th day of December; that the weight of the whole quantity of cheese delivered was 8,729 pounds, which, at eleven cents per pound, amounted to $960.19; that on January 13, 1900, tbe defendant paid the plaintiff by check $891.21, and refused to pay any more, whereupon this action was brought.. Tbe check, on its face, contained tbe words, “Paid in full,” and the defendant contended that it was received in settlement of tbe entire claim.
At the close of the evidence tbe justice dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, whereupon an appeal was taken to tbe circuit court by tire plaintiff, but no affidavit made for tbe purpose of obtaining a new trial. Tbe ease therefore came up in the circuit court upon the record of the trial in the justice’s court, and the circuit court also held that the justice’s court had no jurisdiction of the action, and affirmed the judgment of the justice, whereupon the plaintiff appealed to this court.
For the appellant there were briefs by Lamb, Richmond & Lamb, and oral argument by T. G. Richmond.
For the respondent there was a brief by Gilbert & Jackson> and oral argument by F. L. Gilbert.

Opinion:
The following opinion was filed February 18, 1902:
WiNsnow, J.
Sec. 3512, Stats. 1898, defines and limits the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, and provides, among other things, that a justice shall have jurisdiction over:
"(1) Actions arising or growing out of contract express or implied, wherein the debt or balance due or damages claimed shall not exceed two hundred dollars. (4) Actions founded on any account when the amount of the plaintiff's account, proven to the satisfaction of the justice, shall not exceed five hundred dollars and when the samé shall be reduced to an amount not exceeding two hundred dollars by credits given or by the setoff or demand of the opposite party."
The justice before whom this action was brought held that it was an action upon an account which originally exceeded $500 and fell under the fourth subdivision, above quoted, and hence he dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court affirmed this ruling, and the only question presented which we find it necessary to pass upon is whether this ruling was right.
The plaintiff claims, on the other hand, that it is an action arising out of an express contract, wherein the balance due does not exceed $200, and hence that it falls clearly within the grant of jurisdiction contained in the first subdivision, above quoted; that, being expressly included within one sub division, it is immaterial whether the terms of another subdivision. include it or exclude it. Were the question a new one in this state, the argument of the plaintiff would seem to be a strong one, but the question seems to have been settled in the case of Nimmick v. Mathieson, 32 Wis. 324. That was an action in all essential particulars like the present action. While its close similarity to the present case.is not entirely apparent from the printed report of the case, reference to the case and briefs shows it to have been practically the same ease as the present. A lot of zinc ore was sold by plaintiff to defendant at a certain price per ton, and was weighed and delivered at various times, and. payments were from time to time made by the defendant, and a balance of less than $200 was claimed to be due by the plaintiff. This court held, however, that there was no doubt that it Was an action founded upon account, because it contained a number of distinct items of debit and credit of different dates, and that the subdivision which determined the jurisdiction of justices in actions upon .account, being a specific provision strictly applicable to that action, must be considered as controlling, notwithstanding the general language of another 'subdivision identical in terms with subdivision 1 of the present statute. This decision was rendered in 1873, and has not been overruled or criticised since that time, and we are inclined to follow it.
By the Qourt. — Judgment affirmed.
Appellant moved for a rehearing, which was granted April 22, 1902, and the cause was reargued May 16, 1902.