This is an action of debt on a covenant. The case is as follows. The intestate, Douglass, contracted by deed to purchase from the plaintiff a tract of land, at the price of 500. The covenant is executed by both parites, and ill is bound to the other in the penal sum of $3000, le vendor is bound to make title, when the purchase ■rey is paid, • and the vendee to pay the money in the j-ear 1S4S, if put into possession in that 3'ear.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1954
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
Asa general proposition it is true, that where . a certain duty arises under a sealed instrument, merely •accord and satisfaction by parol is no sufficient answer, for a deed ought to be avoided by a matter of as high nature.
Cth Coke 44, Blake’s case.
As in an action debt upon a single bill, for the payment ol money or for there the debt is ascertained.
Preston
v.
Christmass
Wil. 88. Tut when the covenant sounds altogether in damages, though secured by a penalty, accord and satisfaction executed, though in parol, is a good defence. This doctrine is clearly established by the case of the
State
v.
Cordon
8 Ire. 179. There the action was in debt ■ on a guardian bond, and satisfaction pleaded. Upon settling his accounts, the guardian fell largely in debt to his ward, the relator, and, in satisfaction, transferred, by assignment to him, several promissory notes on third persons, which were accepted in satisfaction of the balance. This Court decided, that the suit was substantially for
*195
damages, that the duty did not accrue tovthe relator in certainty by the bond, but from a wrong or default subsequent, which gave him his action to recover damages from the defendant, and consequent a plea of satisfaction of those damages is good. This case covers the whole ground, taken on the defence.
