¶1After stating the above facts, the rules of law applicable to this case are, that the receipt of so much is only evidence of a payment and satisfaction, and may be explained by parol, or other evidence. This was gone into, and we find that the note was neither paid nor received as satisfaction; but, to constitute a good plea of accord and satisfaction, both should be averred. The plaintiff, then, received a note, which proved unproductive; and it is clear, that it was no satisfaction of this debt, or a discharge of the judgment, unless it were received as such, and the party agreed to run all risks; or, by his after conduct, made it his own. Rule discharged.
16 F. Cas. 1272
Maze v. Miller
U.S. District Court
Decided October 15, 1806
U.S. District Court · decided 1806-10-15
A rule was obtained to set aside an execution issued against the defendant, upon the ground, that the judgment was satisfied by a note of hand, given by the defendant, with an endorser, and a receipt by the plaintiff’s attorney in fact, endorsed on the power of attorney, and given up to defendant, as follows: “Received from J. Miller, the sum of 1177 dollars, being in full, including costs and expenses of property he sold in Alexandria, belonging to J. Maze.” The note when…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1983
1 federal appellate ·
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1806-10-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →