Nelson v. Weeks

111 Mass. 223
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1872·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The payment made in gold was legally a payment of the amount as cash, and must be estimated as such. Bush v. Baldrey, 11 Allen, 367.

There was no discharge given by the plaintiff under seal, and a payment upon a liquidated claim of a less sum than the amount due would not discharge the debt, though a receipt was given, expressed to be in full. Brooks v. White, 2 Met. 283. Donahue v. Woodbury, 6 Cush. 148. And paroi evidence, being generally admissible to control receipts and acknowledgments of consideration, was properly held to be admissible here.

The first instruction prayed for, so far as it was proper, was substantially covered by the words “ if he fairly settled and agreed to put an end to the contract” in the instructions given. The second instruction requested was rightly refused. The election to pay in gold having been made by the defendants, and not by the plaintiff, and no evidence being offered that the plaintiff ever expressly agreed to pay^the premium, mere acquiescence in the mode of payment would not amount to an accord and satisfaction.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Nelson v. Weeks, 111 Mass. 223 (Mass. 1872).

111 Mass. 223 (Nelson v. Weeks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eastern Oil Co. v. Harrison
20 Mass. App. Dec. 130 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1960)
Headley v. Hackley
14 N.W. 693 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1883)
Loring v. Loring
64 Me. 556 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1875)