¶1The receipt, not being under seal, did not operate as a technical release, and was not of itself conclusive evidence of payment; and there being conflicting testimony upon the question whether the sum paid was the whole amount originally due to the plaintiff, the payment of that sum would not as matter of law operate as a discharge, unless it was received in accord and satisfaction of a disputed claim. Tuttle v. Tuttle, 12 Met. 551. Harriman v. Harriman, 12 Gray, 341. The judge, before whom the case was tried without a jury, found as matter of fact that there was no payment, and rightly ruled as matter of law that the defence of accord and satisfaction was not open under the answer. Gen. Sts. c. 129, § 20. Wheaton v. Nelson, 11 Gray, 15. Parker v. Lowell, 11 Gray, 353. Foster v. Dawber, 6 Exch. 839. Exceptions overruled.
128 Mass. 25
Grinnell v. Spink
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 5, 1879
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1879-11-05
Contbact upon an account annexed for work and materials. Answer; 1. A general denial. 2. Payment. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., without a jury, the plaintiff put in evidence tending to show that he performed labor and furnished materials for the defendant on the latter’s house, to the value of $142.43; and that, at the time he rendered his bill for said amount, the defendant disputed the amount, and refused to pay the bill.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1879-11-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 1972
2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →