Heavenrich v. Steele

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Heavenrich v. Steele

58 N.W. 982, 57 Minn. 221, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 264

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 8, 1894

DocketNo. 8664

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 58 N.W. 982 (Heavenrich v. Steele) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heavenrich v. Steele, 58 N.W. 982, 57 Minn. 221, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 264 (Mich. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

GTLEILLA.N, C. J.

The findings of fact, including the sixth, as to which error is assigned, are fully sustained by the evidence.

On those findings, the only question is, can creditor and debtor, having made an accord and satisfaction, rescind the same, by a subsequent agreement, so as to restore the debt to its original status, and so that it may be sued without reference to the accord and satisfaction, or to the agreement rescinding it?

We can conceive of no reason why they cannot. It is true that by the accord and satisfaction, so long as it stands, ■ the debt is [223]*223extinguished. But, when it is rescinded, matters stand as though it had never been made.

Order affirmed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 58 N. W. 982.)

Application for reargument denied May 22, 1894.

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