Flynn v. Hurlock

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Flynn v. Hurlock

45 A. 312, 194 Pa. 462, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 419

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 29, 1900

DocketAppeal, No. 290

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 45 A. 312 (Flynn v. Hurlock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flynn v. Hurlock, 45 A. 312, 194 Pa. 462, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 419 (Pa. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

While we do not think there is any merit in the several assignments of error submitted on behalf of the appellant, and while it is certainly true that a receipt is open to explanation, and is not necessarily conclusive in itself, we are very clear that, upon the testimony in this case, the receipt “ in full of all demands,” given by the plaintiff to the defendant, when the final payment was made, precludes him from any further recovery. He gave [464]*464this receipt because the defendants refused to pay any more money without it. He must be assumed to have received the money upon the express condition that it was in full of all demands. He signed it with his eyes open, -without any fraud, artifice, mistake or imposition practiced upon him, and he is consequently bound by it. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

While we do not think there is any merit in the several assignments of error submitted on behalf of the appellant, and while it is certainly true that a receipt is open to explanation, and is not necessarily conclusive in itself, we are very clear that, upon the testimony in this case, the receipt “ in full of all demands,” given by the plaintiff to the defendant, when the final payment was made, precludes him from any further recovery. He gave [464]*464this receipt because the defendants refused to pay any more money without it. He must be assumed to have received the money upon the express condition that it was in full of all demands. He signed it with his eyes open, -without any fraud, artifice, mistake or imposition practiced upon him, and he is consequently bound by it. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A. 312, 194 Pa. 462, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-hurlock-pa-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack