Case Name: Julius Rothschild, Respondent, v. Samuel Mosbacher and Sigmund Herzfelder, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898
Citations: 26 A.D. 167
Docket Number: 
Parties: Julius Rothschild, Respondent, v. Samuel Mosbacher and Sigmund Herzfelder, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 167–171

Head Matter:
Julius Rothschild, Respondent, v. Samuel Mosbacher and Sigmund Herzfelder, Appellants.
Accm’d and satisfaction — the use by a creditor of a cheek of his debtor after protesting that it was too small in amount.
The'delivery by a debtor, and the acceptance and use by the creditor, of a check for a balance of account as it appears by a statement made by the debtor, in reference to which, when objected to by the creditor, the debtor says : “ That is what you are going to get; you can take it or leave it; if you want any more you can sue me,” the creditor replying: “•! will sue you. I accept this thing as a part payment of what you owe me,” and, when asked to give the debtor a receipt in full, declining to do so, does not constitute an accord and satisfaction.
Appeal by the defendants, Samuel Mosbacher and SigmundITerzfelder, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered ill the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 16th day of April, 1897, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said" clerk’s office on the 19th day of April, 1897, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Austen G. Fox, for the appellants.
Herman Aaron, for the respondent.

Opinion:
McLaughlin, J.:
This action was brought to recover a. sum alleged to be due for commissions on sales made by the plaintiff for the defendants, between 1890 and the close of the year 1893. The plaintiff had a verdict, and from the judgment entered thereon defendants appealed. But one question is presented which calls for a review by this court, and that is, whether the delivery of a' certain check to the plaintiff, the receipt and subsequent use of it by him, amounted in law to an accord and satisfaction. The' defendants contend that it did, and that, therefore, the trial court' erred in .denying the motion, made at the close of the evidence, to dismiss the complaint.
The transaction, as detailed by the plaintiff, of the receipt and subsequent use of the check by him, was substantially this: That he went to the defendants' office near.the close of the year 1893, and . asked them for the balance then due him; • that the defendants thereupon directed their bookkeeper to, and he did, make up a statement and hand it to the plaintiff; that he then handed it to one of the defendants, at the same time saying that it did not correctly show his balance. The defendants made no reply, but, instead, again handed him the statement, together with a check for the amount called for by it; that the plaintiff then said, " This is not the balance of my account and you know it; " to which the defendant Mosbacher replied, " That is what you are going to get; you can take it or leave it.; if you want any m.ore you can sue me," and the plaintiff replied, " I will sue you. I accept this thing as a part payment of what you owe me." If the jury believed this testimony; then the acceptance and subsequent use of the check by. the plaintiff' clearly did not amount to an accord and satisfaction, because the check was neither delivered to the plaintiff nor accepted by him with the intent on the part of either of the parties that it should be so considered. On the contrary, the right to bring an action to recover the balance alleged to be due was expressly reserved to the plaintiff. In this connection it is also to be noted that the defendant Mosbacher testified that, when the check was handed to the plaintiff, he asked him for a receipt in full, which he declined to give. To make out the defense here relied upon, says the Court of Appeals, "the proof must be clear and unequivocal that the observance of the condition was insisted upon, and must not %dmit of the inference that the debtor intended that his creditor might keep the money tendered in case he did not assent to the condition upon which it was offered." (Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231.) The trial court could not say that the proof in this case came up to this requirement. It was a question for the jury to determine whether the check was delivered to the plaintiff upon the condition that its acceptance and use by him was a payment in full, and they have found that it was not, and their finding is sustained by the evidence.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson and Ó'Brien, JJ., concurred.