Case Name: A. Greener & Sons v. P. W. Cain & Sons
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1924-11-03
Citations: 137 Miss. 33
Docket Number: No. 23777
Parties: A. Greener & Sons v. P. W. Cain & Sons.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 33–42

Head Matter:
A. Greener & Sons v. P. W. Cain & Sons.
(In Banc.
Nov. 3, 1924.
Suggestion of Error Overruled Dec. 15, 1924.)
[101 So. 859.
No. 23777.]
1. Accord and Satisfaction. Executed agreement by 'creditor to take less than amount owing is binding, although loithout consideration.
Although an unexecuted contract between debtor and creditor by which the latter agreed to take a less amount than owing on a past due indebtedness was void and unenforceable because there was no new consideration, nevertheless, where such a contract had been executed, it is binding, and the creditor cannot sue for the balance, although there was no consideration for the new contract.
2. Accord and Satisfaction. Creditor cannot accept money and reject goods tendered in full payment of debt.
Where a debtor tendered the creditor in full payment and satisfaction of a liquidated overdue debt goods at invoice price and a check for the balance, on which check there was indorsed “in full of account to date,” which check the creditor accepted and credited the debtor with the proceeds thereof, but declined to accept the goods, held, that the tender by the debtor of the goods and check was an entirety which had to be accepted or rejected by the creditor as made, and the acceptance by the creditor of the check bound him to accept likewise the tender of the goods; that the acceptance of one was the acceptance of both.
Smith, C. J., and Holden, J., dissenting.
Appeal from circuit court of Monroe county.
Hon. C. P. Long, Judge.
Action by A. Greener & Sons against P.' W. Cain & Sons. Prom a judgment fordef endants, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
B. II. Loving, for appellánts.
McFarland c& Holmes, for appellee.
Briefs in this case not available to the reporter.
Headnotes 1. Accord and Satisfaction, 1 C. J., section 44; 2. Accord and Satisfaction, 1 C. J., section 95 (1926 Anno).

Opinion:
Anderson, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellants, A. Greener & Sons, sued appellees, P. W. Cain & Sons, for a balanc " of one hundred thirteen dollars and twenty-five cents alleged to be due on open account. By consent of the parties the circuit court tried the case sitting as judge and jury, and rendered a judgment in favor of appellees from which appellants prosecute this appeal.
Appellants were wholesale merchants, in Memphis, while appellees were retail merchants in Monroe County in this state. Appellees purchased a bill of goods from appellants on which there was a balance due of one hundred and thirty-five dollars. Appellees admitted they were due appellants that amount, and that it was past due. The amount due was therefore liquidated and admitted by appellees to be overdue. Appellees tendered appel lants in full payment and settlement of the indebtedness one hundred thirteen dollars and twenty-five cents worth of goods at invoice price which they had bought from appellants, and their check for the balance, twenty-one dollars and seventy-five cents, making the one hundred and thirty-five dollars. The tender was made in this manner: Appellees shipped to appellants by express the goods, and wrote appellants a letter, inclosing'; a check .for twenty-one dollars and seventy-five cents, upon which was noted "in full of account to date," and asked appellants to accept the goods and the check in full of the indebtedness, claiming that on account of -dverse business conditions they could do no better. Appellants thereupon indorsed the check for twenty-one dollars and seventy-five cents, and took credit for the amount with their hank, which check in due course was paid by appellees. Appellants declined, however, to accept the goods shipped them by appellees, and promptly so notified the appellees, and demanded payment of the balance of one hundred thirteen dollars and twenty-five cents in money. Appellees refused payment, whereupon appellants brought this suit for said balance. Appellees' position is that acceptance by appellants of the check for twenty-one dollars and seventy-five cents was .n acceptance also of the goods tendered by appellees. In other words, appellees contend that what took place amounted to an executed accord and satisfaction for a liquidated past-due indebtedness. On the other hand, appellants contend that the minds of the parties never met; that they had a right to accept and appropriate the check for twenty-one dollars and seventy-five cents, which was only a part of what was justly due them, and reject the tender of the balance in goods.
It was held in Clayton v. Clark, 74 Miss. 499, 21 So. 565, 22 So. 189, 37 L. R. A. 771, 60 Am. St. Rep. 521, that, although an unexecuted contract between debtor and creditor by which the latter agreed to take a less amount than owing on a past-due indebtedness was void and un enforceable because there ivas no consideration, nevertheless, where such a contract had become executed, that is, where the lesser amount had been paid and the evidence of debt surrendered, the contract was binding, and the creditor could not sue for the balance, although there was no consideration for the new contract; that an executed contract of that character was tantamount to the creditor, making a gift to debtor of the balance due, which he had a right to do, and when done was binding between them.
We are of opinion that the principles laid down in that case are largely controlling here in favor of appellees. It is true that appellants declined the tender of the goods, but at the same time they accepted the tender of the check. This they could not do. The tender was an entirety. Appellants could not split it to suit themselves; they had to take all of it or none of it. And when they took part of it the law imposed the duty upon them to take the balance whether they would or not. They had to accept or reject the tender according to its terms. Putting it differently, their acceptance and appropriation of the check was unauthorized, unless at the same time they were willing to take the balance due in the goods tendered by appellees.
Affirmed.