Clark v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clark v. Thompson

88 S.E. 913, 18 Ga. App. 125, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 160

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 19, 1916

Docket6726

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 913 (Clark v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Thompson, 88 S.E. 913, 18 Ga. App. 125, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 160 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

The unconditional acceptance of a note as payment of a pre-existing account, some items of which are in dispute, is an accord and satisfaction of the account, which precludes the maintenance of an action upon it. Sutton v. Hurley, 12 Ga. App. 312 (77 S. E. 218). However, in the present case there was evidence which, if credible, authorized a finding that the acceptance of the note in question was expressly dependent upon the condition that a certain bank would discount the note, and that this condition was not met. In this view of the ease, the effort to settle the account by note was shown to be nugatory, and the plaintiff was entitled to sue upon his account, even if he had not made an attempt to return the note. The fact that the defendant may be entitled to the possession of his note, and might, by trover, compel its return, can not affect the plaintiff’s right to proceed upon his account, since, according to the answer to the certiorari, it was agreed that the note was not to be a substitute for the account unless it could be discounted at bank. There was no error in overruling the petition for certiorari. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Russell, C. J.

The unconditional acceptance of a note as payment of a pre-existing account, some items of which are in dispute, is an accord and satisfaction of the account, which precludes the maintenance of an action upon it. Sutton v. Hurley, 12 Ga. App. 312 (77 S. E. 218). However, in the present case there was evidence which, if credible, authorized a finding that the acceptance of the note in question was expressly dependent upon the condition that a certain bank would discount the note, and that this condition was not met. In this view of the ease, the effort to settle the account by note was shown to be nugatory, and the plaintiff was entitled to sue upon his account, even if he had not made an attempt to return the note. The fact that the defendant may be entitled to the possession of his note, and might, by trover, compel its return, can not affect the plaintiff’s right to proceed upon his account, since, according to the answer to the certiorari, it was agreed that the note was not to be a substitute for the account unless it could be discounted at bank. There was no error in overruling the petition for certiorari. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 913, 18 Ga. App. 125, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-thompson-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack