Court Opinion

ID: 9670132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:15:17.490687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.717674
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
STRUTZ, Judge.
The plaintiff has filed a petition for rehearing in which he points out, among other things, that “accord and satisfaction” was not specifically pleaded by the defendant, and that the defendant’s answer merely alleged payment of his indebtedness to the plaintiff.
The lines of distinction between “accord and satisfaction,” “compromise,” “settlement,” or “payment” are not always clearly drawn. The defendant did allege, and throughout the trial contended, that he had fully paid his indebtedness to the plaintiff. In addition, he proved that, on November 13, 1958, which was approximately nine months after plaintiff had rendered his last services to the defendant, he went to the plaintiff’s office and paid to the plaintiff personally the sum of twenty-five dollars, which the court found to be a final payment in settlement of accounts between the parties. The court in its findings said:
“That on or about the 13th day of November, 1958, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff, the sum of $25.00, which payment was made by the Defendant, and which payment was accepted by the Plaintiff as final payment, in settlement of accounts between the parties.”
This finding by the trial court was in effect a finding of accord and satisfaction, even though that term was not used. We agree with that finding.
Petition for rehearing denied.
SATHRE, C. J., and MORRIS, BURKE and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.