Konqueror Building & Loan Ass'n v. G. R. Kinney Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Konqueror Building & Loan Ass'n v. G. R. Kinney Co.

172 A. 719, 315 Pa. 318, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 613

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 17, 1934

DocketAppeal, 198

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 172 A. 719 (Konqueror Building & Loan Ass'n v. G. R. Kinney Co.) 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

Konqueror Building & Loan Ass'n v. G. R. Kinney Co., 172 A. 719, 315 Pa. 318, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 613 (Pa. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff, owner of property at 5947 Market Street, Philadelphia, brought suit in assumpsit to recover the sum of $3,000 which defendant had offered to pay for cancellation of its lease as tenant of the property indicated above, payment to be made within seventy-two hours after acceptance. The offer was accepted by plaintiff and an arrangement made to complete the transaction in the City of New York on the following day. At the time appointed for the meeting, however, defendant receded from the contract and refused to pay the $3,000. The court below entered judgment for defendant upon its affidavit of defense in lieu of demurrer raising questions of law. Plaintiff appeals.

Appellant contends the agreement to terminate the lease operates as an accord and satisfaction in which the new promise constitutes a satisfaction of the original obligation. This argument implies that the lease was extinguished and that an action will lie to enforce the *320 contract made in its stead. The facts, however, do not sustain this contention. Not only does the statement of claim admit that defendant continues to occupy the premises as lessee under the original lease, the term of which expires in 1940, but it also avers in the twelfth paragraph that, subsequent to defendant’s breach of the alleged accord and satisfaction, plaintiff attempted to renew negotiations for assignment of the lease to the Provident Title Company, which holds a first mortgage on the premises. The pleadings accordingly show that appellant considered the lease valid and subsisting.

Payment and acceptance of the sum agreed upon were essential to termination of the lease. This is not a case where a promise to perform is a satisfaction of the agreement, as in Laughead v. Frick Coal Co., 209 Pa. 368, and Meaker Galv. Co. v. McInnes & Co., 272 Pa. 561, consequently those cases do not rule the present controversy. “Until satisfaction, an accord is revocable at the pleasure of either party. An unexecuted accord is not enforceable by action; and, inasmuch as there is no satisfaction of the original obligation, it remains in force and the creditor has his remedy by action to enforce it”: 1 C. J. 533, section 23. The court below correctly held the agreement between the parties was an executory contract of accord and satisfaction, but satisfaction not having been made, and defendant having withdrawn, the agreement is unenforceable and the rights of each party remain as before: Hearn v. Kiehl, 38 Pa. 147; Schwartzfager v. Pgh., etc., Ry. Co., 238 Pa. 158.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff, owner of property at 5947 Market Street, Philadelphia, brought suit in assumpsit to recover the sum of $3,000 which defendant had offered to pay for cancellation of its lease as tenant of the property indicated above, payment to be made within seventy-two hours after acceptance. The offer was accepted by plaintiff and an arrangement made to complete the transaction in the City of New York on the following day. At the time appointed for the meeting, however, defendant receded from the contract and refused to pay the $3,000. The court below entered judgment for defendant upon its affidavit of defense in lieu of demurrer raising questions of law. Plaintiff appeals.

Appellant contends the agreement to terminate the lease operates as an accord and satisfaction in which the new promise constitutes a satisfaction of the original obligation. This argument implies that the lease was extinguished and that an action will lie to enforce the *320 contract made in its stead. The facts, however, do not sustain this contention. Not only does the statement of claim admit that defendant continues to occupy the premises as lessee under the original lease, the term of which expires in 1940, but it also avers in the twelfth paragraph that, subsequent to defendant’s breach of the alleged accord and satisfaction, plaintiff attempted to renew negotiations for assignment of the lease to the Provident Title Company, which holds a first mortgage on the premises. The pleadings accordingly show that appellant considered the lease valid and subsisting.

Payment and acceptance of the sum agreed upon were essential to termination of the lease. This is not a case where a promise to perform is a satisfaction of the agreement, as in Laughead v. Frick Coal Co., 209 Pa. 368, and Meaker Galv. Co. v. McInnes & Co., 272 Pa. 561, consequently those cases do not rule the present controversy. “Until satisfaction, an accord is revocable at the pleasure of either party. An unexecuted accord is not enforceable by action; and, inasmuch as there is no satisfaction of the original obligation, it remains in force and the creditor has his remedy by action to enforce it”: 1 C. J. 533, section 23. The court below correctly held the agreement between the parties was an executory contract of accord and satisfaction, but satisfaction not having been made, and defendant having withdrawn, the agreement is unenforceable and the rights of each party remain as before: Hearn v. Kiehl, 38 Pa. 147; Schwartzfager v. Pgh., etc., Ry. Co., 238 Pa. 158.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A. 719, 315 Pa. 318, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/konqueror-building-loan-assn-v-g-r-kinney-co-pa-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack