Maze v. Miller

16 F. Cas. 1272, 1 Wash. C. C. 328
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania·Decided October 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

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

Maze v. Miller, 16 F. Cas. 1272, 1 Wash. C. C. 328 (circtdpa 1806).

16 F. Cas. 1272 (Maze v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barnum v. Green
13 Colo. App. 254 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1899)
Lindsay v. Gager
11 A.D. 93 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Frick v. Algeier
87 Ind. 255 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Ryan v. Rand
26 N.H. 12 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1852)