Pan-American Life Insurance v. Carter

195 S.E. 326, 57 Ga. App. 294, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 571
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 10, 1938
Docket26500
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 195 S.E. 326 (Pan-American Life Insurance v. Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pan-American Life Insurance v. Carter, 195 S.E. 326, 57 Ga. App. 294, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 571 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “When a party makes an offer of a certain sum to settle a claim, the amount of which is in bona fide dispute, with the condition that the sum offered, if taken at all, must be received in full satisfaction of the claim, and the party receives the money, he takes it subject to the condition attached to it, and it will operate as an accord and satisfaction.” Riley v. London Guaranty & Accident Co., 27 Ga. App. 686 (109 S’. E. 676), and cit. The same ruling applies where the claimant, instead of receiving money as a settlement of his claim, receives a check or draft from the other party in full settlement of the claim. And this is so even though the claimant makes no effort to, and does not, cash the check or draft, and subsequently tenders it back to the other party. This is true because the check or draft was necessarily accepted as cash by the claimant in full satisfaction of his claim. Interstate Life & Accident Co. v. Wilson, 52 Ga. App. 171 (183 S. E. 672); Howard v. Ga. Home Ins. Co., 102 Ga. 137 (29 S. E. 143).

2. Where, without the practice of any fraud upon her, a plaintiff accepts, in full satisfaction of her claim, a lesser amount than what she claims is due her, there is an accord and satisfaction, and she is not entitled to a recovery. Interstate Life &c. Co. v. Wilson, supra, note 2.

3. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of the instant case, a finding in favor of the defendant’s plea of accord and satisfaction was demanded. The verdict for the plaintiff was contrary to law and the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mullinax v. Shaw
239 S.E.2d 547 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Warner Robins Supply Co. v. Malone
238 S.E.2d 709 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
American Security Van Lines, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co.
210 S.E.2d 832 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Sentry Insurance v. Mells
208 S.E.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Henry v. Allstate Insurance
199 S.E.2d 338 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Studstill v. American Oil Co.
191 S.E.2d 538 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Holton Dodge, Inc. v. Baird
163 S.E.2d 346 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Gay v. American Oil Company
153 S.E.2d 612 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Baggett v. Chavous
131 S.E.2d 109 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Kennedy v. Bateman
123 S.E.2d 656 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
Harvey v. Smith
63 S.E.2d 885 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
National Life & Accident Insurance v. Parker
19 S.E.2d 409 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
David D. Doniger & Co. v. Briggs
7 S.E.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 S.E. 326, 57 Ga. App. 294, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pan-american-life-insurance-v-carter-gactapp-1938.