TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Burgess v. Denison Paper Manufacturing Co.

Albion S. Burgess v. Denison Paper Manufacturing Company

Burgess v. Denison Paper Mfg. Co., 9 A. 726 (Me. 1887)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 8, 1887
Judges
Emery, Haskell, Libbey, Peters, Virgin, Walton
Citations
9 A. 72679 Me. 2661887 Me. LEXIS 66
Headnotes
Accord and satisfaction. The defense of acéord and satisfaction is not made out, by showing that the plaintiif promised to accept, for labor already performed by him, a deed of land from a third person in satisfaction of his claim, it appearing that thé deed was executed but not delivered nor tendered.
Summary
On exceptions and motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. Assumpsit for labor performed. The verdict was for plaintiff for one hundred and six dollars and twenty-three cents. The opinion states the point raised by the exceptions and material facts.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Peters

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Peters, C. J.

The plaintiff has a claim against the defendants for labor. The defendants rely on an alleged accord and satisfaction, contending that the plaintiff agreed to take a deed from a third party in satisfaction of his claim. The defendants obtained the deed but did not deliver it, relying on the plaintiff to call for it. "The accord is the agreement for the reception of the thing in discharge of the debt; the satisfaction is the actual reception of the thing.” Whar. Con. § 996; Bragg v. Pierce 53 Maine, 65. Here there was accord but not satisfaction. The deed was not received. Nothing short of an actual reception of the deed would constitute a defense.

Exceptions overruled.

Walton, Virgin, Libbey, Emery and Haskell, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1895: 11920: 11966: 118952026peak 1895 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Akerley v. Lammi217 A.2d 396 (Me. 1966)
  2. Sargent v. Donahue110 A. 442 (Vt. 1920)
  3. Carpenter v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.64 N.W. 1120 (S.D. 1895)

Most recent

  1. Akerley v. Lammi217 A.2d 396 (Me. 1966)
  2. Sargent v. Donahue110 A. 442 (Vt. 1920)
  3. Carpenter v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.64 N.W. 1120 (S.D. 1895)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list