Pugh v. Long

D.C. Circuit

Pugh v. Long

58 F.2d 882, 61 App. D.C. 156, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4781

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 1932

DocketNo. 5439

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 58 F.2d 882 (Pugh v. Long) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pugh v. Long, 58 F.2d 882, 61 App. D.C. 156, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4781 (D.C. Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The case is here upon a writ of error to review a judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of defendant in error. The facts are these:

Defendant in error, whom we shall call plaintiff, agreed to sell and deliver to plaintiff in error, whom we shall call defendant, a carload of turkeys. The price per pound was based upon grades. Upon arrival of the car, defendant, made a superficial examination, and, without more, delivered to plaintiff cheek for the price of the turkeys on the basis of plaintiff’s grading. The same afternoon defendant discovered that the turkeys were not up to grade, and notified plain tiff accordingly and directed him not to cash the cheek. Defendant thereupon had the turkeys regraded by an expert grader, and immediately advised plaintiff of the result of this regrading, and at the same time mailed to him a cheek for a smaller amount than the first check, and marked on the cheek “Payment in full on ear F. G. E. 35188,” which was the ear in which the turkeys had been delivered. Plaintiff received the check, cashed it, and later informed defendant that [883]*883it would not be accepted in full payment. The action below resulted.

The question which we have to decide is whether the acceptance and cashing by the plaintiff of defendant’s check marked “Payment in full” constituted under the circumstances an accord and satisfaction. We think it did, and that the ease is controlled by Andrews v. Haller Wall Paper Co., 32 App. D. C. 392, 16 Ann. Cas. 192, in which the subject is fully discussed and to which we refer as expressing our views of the applicable law in the case at bar.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial in accordance with this decision.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The case is here upon a writ of error to review a judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of defendant in error. The facts are these:

Defendant in error, whom we shall call plaintiff, agreed to sell and deliver to plaintiff in error, whom we shall call defendant, a carload of turkeys. The price per pound was based upon grades. Upon arrival of the car, defendant, made a superficial examination, and, without more, delivered to plaintiff cheek for the price of the turkeys on the basis of plaintiff’s grading. The same afternoon defendant discovered that the turkeys were not up to grade, and notified plain tiff accordingly and directed him not to cash the cheek. Defendant thereupon had the turkeys regraded by an expert grader, and immediately advised plaintiff of the result of this regrading, and at the same time mailed to him a cheek for a smaller amount than the first check, and marked on the cheek “Payment in full on ear F. G. E. 35188,” which was the ear in which the turkeys had been delivered. Plaintiff received the check, cashed it, and later informed defendant that [883]*883it would not be accepted in full payment. The action below resulted.

The question which we have to decide is whether the acceptance and cashing by the plaintiff of defendant’s check marked “Payment in full” constituted under the circumstances an accord and satisfaction. We think it did, and that the ease is controlled by Andrews v. Haller Wall Paper Co., 32 App. D. C. 392, 16 Ann. Cas. 192, in which the subject is fully discussed and to which we refer as expressing our views of the applicable law in the case at bar.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial in accordance with this decision.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 F.2d 882, 61 App. D.C. 156, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 4781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugh-v-long-cadc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack