Cochran v. Slomkowski

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Cochran v. Slomkowski

29 Pa. Super. 385, 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 340

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 20, 1905

DocketAppeal, No. 246

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 Pa. Super. 385 (Cochran v. Slomkowski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cochran v. Slomkowski, 29 Pa. Super. 385, 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 340 (Pa. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The plaintiff declared on a contract in writing for a balance due on the price of the personal property described in the contract. The defendant alleges in the affidavit of defense that he delivered to the plaintiff two checks on the National Security Bank of Philadelphia for filOO and $250 respectively, “ which said checks the plaintiff then and there accepted in full payment and satisfaction of all claims and demands of the defendant for the balance due on the articles mentioned in the incorrect copy of the agreement attached to plaintiff’s statement.” This is a clear averment that the checks were received by the plaintiff as an absolute payment and satisfaction of his claim. It is an allegation that the debt was extinguished. The acceptance from the debtor of his check to be applied to the discharge of an antecedent indebtedness does not amount to payment; it is considered merely as a conditional payment. The creditor may agree, however, to accept it in satisfaction of the original liability, and, such special agreement being established, the creditor must look to the new security for satisfaction of his claim. The burden is on him who alleges such an agreement to prove it, but if established by evidence such a defense is available to him : League v. Waring & Co., [387]*38785 Pa. 244; Hunter v. Moul, 98 Pa. 13; Farmers’ Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 621.

The defendant’s unequivocal assertion that the checks referred to in his affidavit were given and accepted in full payment and satisfaction of all the plaintiff’s claims and demands on account of the contract sued upon, brings his case within the doctrine of the cases referred to and many others upon the same point. He was therefore entitled to be heard on the defense presented.

The judgment is reversed and the record remitted for further proceeding.

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

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The plaintiff declared on a contract in writing for a balance due on the price of the personal property described in the contract. The defendant alleges in the affidavit of defense that he delivered to the plaintiff two checks on the National Security Bank of Philadelphia for filOO and $250 respectively, “ which said checks the plaintiff then and there accepted in full payment and satisfaction of all claims and demands of the defendant for the balance due on the articles mentioned in the incorrect copy of the agreement attached to plaintiff’s statement.” This is a clear averment that the checks were received by the plaintiff as an absolute payment and satisfaction of his claim. It is an allegation that the debt was extinguished. The acceptance from the debtor of his check to be applied to the discharge of an antecedent indebtedness does not amount to payment; it is considered merely as a conditional payment. The creditor may agree, however, to accept it in satisfaction of the original liability, and, such special agreement being established, the creditor must look to the new security for satisfaction of his claim. The burden is on him who alleges such an agreement to prove it, but if established by evidence such a defense is available to him : League v. Waring & Co., [387]*38785 Pa. 244; Hunter v. Moul, 98 Pa. 13; Farmers’ Nat. Bank v. Marshall, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 621.

The defendant’s unequivocal assertion that the checks referred to in his affidavit were given and accepted in full payment and satisfaction of all the plaintiff’s claims and demands on account of the contract sued upon, brings his case within the doctrine of the cases referred to and many others upon the same point. He was therefore entitled to be heard on the defense presented.

The judgment is reversed and the record remitted for further proceeding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Pa. Super. 385, 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-slomkowski-pasuperct-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack