Case Name: Blackmer & Post Pipe Company, Appellant, v. R. E. Goodwin and J. W. Ryan, partners, trading as Goodwin & Ryan, Appellees
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1916-10-13
Citations: 202 Ill. App. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: Blackmer & Post Pipe Company, Appellant, v. R. E. Goodwin and J. W. Ryan, partners, trading as Goodwin & Ryan, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 202
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Blackmer & Post Pipe Company, Appellant, v. R. E. Goodwin and J. W. Ryan, partners, trading as Goodwin & Ryan, Appellees.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. Augustus A. Partlow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed October 13, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Blackmer & Post Pipe Company, plaintiff, against B. E. Goodwin and J. W. Byan, partners, trading as Goodwin & Byan, defendants, for a balance due for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. Prom a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
The defendants, after making a part payment for the goods by sending the plaintiff an order for payment of money on a city for which they had done work, wrote a letter to plaintiff asking it to .send to them a bill for the balance which they owed it and stating that they would pay the same as soon as they could; that they expected a settlement of their work any day and could then send the balance of their bill. Later they signed a written statement of their account with the plaintiff, wherein they acknowledged that the sum of $559.53, the sum sued for, was due.
Walter T. Guru and Jay Briggs, for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eldredgb
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abstract of the Decision.
Accord and satisfaction, § 8 —when evidence shows part payment was not an accord and satisfaction. In an action for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff'to the defendant, the clear and manifest weight of the evidence held to show that the giving of an order by the defendants to the plaintiff for the payment of money was not intended to be an accord and satisfaction of the debt.