Court Opinion

ID: 8843425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 16:49:11.215093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:16.514758
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
There is no merit in the claim of the libelant for the detention of his vessel at Richmond. He was aware of this himself, and did not assert any such claim in his conversations with the respondents, but insisted upon compensation for the detention, at Poughkeepsie. The respondents, recognizing-their liability for the detention at Poughkeepsie, tried to induce him to accept $100 in full. He refused, and they handed him a check for $125. When he read it, and saw the amount, he told them it would not satisfy the owners; but they insisted upon his keeping it, telling him, if he found it did not satisfy the owners, to return it; and he replied that he would sue them. Not, only did he not promise to accept the check in full settlement, but he did not expressly promise to return it. If his conduct led them to suppose he would return it before suing them, they have lost nothing by his omission to do so. Even if he had expressly promised to do so, his subsequent neglect or refusal would not afford the respondents a defense. He was entitled to a much larger sum; and nothing short of an accord and satisfaction, or the acceptance of the check as a discharge in full, is a release. The decree is affirmed, without costs of this court to either party, both parties having appealed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with instructions to enter a decree accordingly, with interest.