Case Name: Milton Hendrix v. William A. Kirkpatrick
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1896-06-02
Citations: 48 Neb. 670
Docket Number: No. 6625
Parties: Milton Hendrix v. William A. Kirkpatrick.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 670–672

Head Matter:
Milton Hendrix v. William A. Kirkpatrick.
Filed June 2, 1896.
No. 6625.
1. Account Stated. An account stated is an agreement between persons who have had previous dealings determining the amount due by reason of such transactions. (McKimsier v. Hitchcock, 19 Neb., 100.)
2. -: Pbomise to Pay: Action. The rendering of an account between parties and agreeing upon the amount due as appearing therefrom will support an action for the balance thereby shown without an express promise to pay.
3. -: Objection: Evidence. The failure to object to an account rendered is admissible in evidence as tending to prove an acknowledgment of its correctness, its weight or sufficiency for such purpose being a question of fact for the consideration of the jury.
4.-: Evidence. Verdict for defendant in error, who sued to recover upon an account stated, held', from an examination of the evidence, to be warranted thereby.
Error from tbe district court of Sarpy county. Tried below before Scott, J.
James A. Powers, for plaintiff in error.
James Hasseit, contra.

Opinion:
Post, C. J.
Counsel for tbe plaintiff in error frankly admits that tbe only question presented by tbe record of this case is whether tbe evidence is sufficient to sustain tbe finding that there was an account stated by tbe parties as alleged in tbe petition below, and upon which a recovery was allowed by the district court for Sarpy county. Tbe specific allegation to tbe petition, to which-Mhe verdict and judgment are responsive, is that there is due from tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff therein a balance of $137.82 for work and labor as per settlement on or about January 27, 1892, and which sum tbe said defendant promised and agreed to pay. It appears from tbe evidence submitted by tbe defendant in error, Kirkpatrick, that on quitting tbe employ of tbe plaintiff in error, Hendrix, some time prior to tbe date above named, be was requested by tbe latter to make out and furnish an account of bis charges; that in response to such request be prepared and forwarded a statement of tbe account, showing tbe services rendered and balance in bis favor, to which Mr. Hendrix responded objecting to one charge only, to-wit, for one day's labor with team. With respect to tbe subsequent transactions defendant in error testified: "I sent him back an itemized statement of tbe dates and work performed, and I beard nothing from him after that until tbe 27th day of January. Him and Mr. Ringo come to my place and told me if I would come back to tbe bouse be would give me a check for part of tbe money that was due me. I came back and be gave me a check and checked tbe statement I gave him and said there was no difference, and said if I would be in Omaha on tbe following Saturday be would give me my money in full for tbe account." The foregoing-statement is corroborated by Mrs. Kirkpatrick, tbe wife of defendant in error, who was present during tbe interview mentioned, and who testified that Mr. Hendrix at that-time acknowledged tbe itemized statement then in bis possession to be correct. Tbe foregoing evidence, although controverted by tbe plaintiff in error, was evidently accepted as true by tbe jury, and tbe verdict is conclusive upon that issue. Tbe only question for determination is, therefore, whether tbe facts proved are sufficient in law to warrant tbe finding of a settlement between tbe parties.
An account stated is, as said by this court in McKinster r. Hitchcock, 19 Neb., 100, "an agreement between persons who have bad previous transactions, fixing tbe amount due in respect to such transactions." In Claire v. Claire, 10 Neb., 54, it was said by Judge Lake that "Tbe simple rendering of an account between parties and agreeing upon tbe amount due are sufficient facts on which to maintain an action." Although many cases go to the extent of holding that by the mere failure to object to an account rendered it becomes a liquidated and unimpeachable demand, the sound rule is believed to be that such fact is admissible as an acknowledgment of the correctness thereof, the weight or sufficiency of such proof being a question of fact to be determined by the jury. (Chisman v. Count, 2 M. & G. [Eng.], 807; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. [U. S.], 300; Guernsey v. Rexford, 63 N. Y., 631; Sharkey v. Mansfield, 90 N. Y., 227.) But whichever view we may adopt, it is clear that the finding in this case is fully warranted by the evidence, and that the judgment should be
Affirmed.