Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

143 Mass. 379

Ulsch v. Muller

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 10, 1887

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1887-01-10

Contract upon a promissory note for $100, dated June 21, 1884, payable to the plaintiff one year from date, and signed by the defendant.

Relies on Grinnell v. Spink

Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Pay”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-01-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1972

8 state decisions

201887189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Field, J.

¶1The delivery and acceptance of wood, under an agreement that the price of the wood shall be taken as the payment of money due upon a promissory note, is not, in the technical language of pleading, payment of the note. Originally payment was the performance of a promise to pay money, at the time and in the manner required by the terms of-the contract; but it has been extended to include the delivery of money in satisfaction of a debt, after a default has been made in payment according to the terms of the contract. If wood is delivered and received as a payment of money due on a note, it is *380only by virtue of a subsequent and independent agreement to that effect, and there is an. accord and satisfaction; and the agreement by which the acceptance of the wood operates as a satisfaction of the contract, and the delivery and receipt of the wood by the plaintiff under this agreement, are substantive facts, which should be set forth in the answer. Grinnell v. Spink, 128 Mass. 25. 1 Chit. Pl. (14th Am. ed.) 478, 740. See Wheaton v. Nelson, 11 Gray, 15.

¶2Exceptions overruled.

/143/mass/379 · .json · Public domain