Case Name: Antoine Campbell, Respondent, v. John Hurd, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12
Citations: 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 235
Docket Number: 
Parties: Antoine Campbell, Respondent, v. John Hurd, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 81
Pages: 235–239

Head Matter:
Antoine Campbell, Respondent, v. John Hurd, Appellant.
Order by an agent on Ms principal, not a satisfaction unless paid — accord — not a bar to the original cause of action.
The giving of an order upon a debtor by his agent, when accepted, is equivalent to the debtor’s giving his own note in payment of the debt, and is not a satisfaction unless such order is paid in full. (Mayham, P. J., dissenting.)
An accord is not a bar to a suit on the original cause of action. (Per Pütnam, J.)
Appeal by the defendant, John Hurd, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of St. Lawrence on the 26th day of June. 1893, upon the report of a referee.
The plaintiff, having a claim against the defendant for services rendered under a written contract, for a considerable sum, accepted from defendant’s superintendent an order on defendant for $450 ini settlement. This order was accepted by the defendant, and $150 paid on account of it. The balance was not paid, and this action was brought to recover on the original contract.
S. A. Beman and Theo. H. Swift, for the appellant.
Lawrence Russell and Nelson L. Robinson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Putnam, J.:
Plaintiff brought this action to recover a balance due on an unsettled account. The defendant claimed an accord and satisfaction. The testimony in the case, however, shows an accord but not a satisfaction. The accord is not a bar to a suit on the original cause of action. (Brooklyn Smile v. De Greauw, 23 Wend. 342.) The giving of the order by defendant's agent on defendant Was equivalent to defendant giving his own note for the claim in suit, which has been held not to be a satisfaction. (Person v. Civer, 29 How. 432, 438, 439.) Although if the order had been paid in full it would have amounted to a satisfaction.
As there was no accord and satisfaction I think it follows that plaintiff was not estopjied by the new agreement or accord as to the amount of the recovery or otherwise. To hold that plaintiff can only recover the amount agreed upon by the accord is in fact to hold such accord binding upon him without satisfaction. In my view, there being no accord and satisfaction, the plaintiff can recover on the original claim in all regards as if the order by defendant's agent on defendant had not been given.
It follows that the refusal of the learned referee to find " that the settlement and acceptance of the cash order by the plaintiff and its acceptance by the defendant fixed the amount of defendant's liability under said contract mentioned in the complaint," as requested by defendant, was not an error.
I have examined the various exceptions taken by the defendant on the trial and think that neither of them requires a reversal of the judgment.
I think, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.