Maze v. Miller
This text of 16 F. Cas. 1272 (Maze v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
After stating the above facts, the rules of law applicable to this case are, that the receipt of so much is only evidence of a payment and satisfaction, and may be explained by parol, or other evidence. This was gone into, and we find that the note was neither paid nor received as satisfaction; but, to constitute a good plea of accord and satisfaction, both should be averred. The plaintiff, then, received a note, which proved unproductive; and it is clear, that it was no satisfaction of this debt, or a discharge of the judgment, unless it were received as such, and the party agreed to run all risks; or, by his after conduct, made it his own. Rule discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 F. Cas. 1272, 1 Wash. C. C. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maze-v-miller-circtdpa-1806.