Court Opinion

ID: 9865677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:22:05.41344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:12.336596
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
“But as an accord and satisfaction is an executed agreement whereby one of the parties undertakes to give, and the other to accept, in satisfaction of a claim arising either from contract or tort, something other or different from what he is or considers himself entitled to, no invariable rule can be laid down, with any degree of certainty, as to what constitutes such an agreement. Each case must be determined largely on its peculiar facts. To constitute a valid accord and satisfaction, not only must it be shown that the debtor gave the amount in satisfaction, but that it was accepted hy the creditor as such. Jones v. Fennimore, 1 G. Greene, 134; Weddigen v. Fabric Co., 100 Mass. 422. The agreement need not be express, but may be implied from circumstances, as shown in the cases just cited. Where an offer of accord is made on condition that it is to be taken in full of demands, the creditor, doubtless, has no alternative but to refuse it or accept it upon such con*98ditions. Keck v. Insurance Co., 89 Iowa 200 [56 N. W. 438]. But even in such a case the debtor may consent to the creditor’s receiving it on his own terms. Potter v. Douglass, 44 Conn. 541; Sicotte v. Barber, 83 Wis. 431 (53 N. W. 697); Gassett v. Town of Andover, 21 Vt. 342. . Whether or not there has been such a giving and acceptance as to amount to an accord and satisfaction is generally a question of fact for the jury.” Perin v. Cathcart, 115 Iowa 559 (89 N. W. 12).
The inquiry here is, how did the plaintiff receive the $10,000 in money. Did he receive it for his stock merely, or did he receive it, as claimed by the defendant, upon the conditions attending the offer of the defendant, in full settlement of “every claim,” including the plaintiff’s salary in question ? There are but two ways by which the money could have become his (plaintiff’s): (1) By receiving it in consideration of only his stock, with the defendant’s consent; and (2) by receiving it in full satisfaction of “every claim” that he had against the defendant corporation. The jury, having accepted the testimony for the defendant rather than that for the plaintiff, were authorized to find that the agreement was executed by the payment of money, whereby the plaintiff received the $10,000 upon the conditions attending the offer of the defendant, in full settlement of “every claim” against such corporation, notwithstanding any mental reservation of the plaintiff to the contrary. Hence, the jury were authorized to find that the defendant had carried the burden of proving his plea of accord and satisfaction. Burgamy v. Holton, 165 Ga. 384 (141 S. E. 42).

Rehearing denied.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.