Cabe v. . Jameson

32 N.C. 193

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: August 5, 1849
• Status: Published

Opinion

Nash, J,

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 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.

Ter Curiam

Judgment affirmed.'