Jones v. Ricketts

The law is clearly settled in this State, that the payment of a less sum of money than the whole debt, without a release, is no satisfaction of the debt. A judgment creditor executed a a receipt for a certain sum in full of two judgments, upon which more was then due. Held, that this receipt was not conclusive, nor binding as a final settlement of the judgments. The fact that the debtor went to his creditor at a distance, to make the settlement, cannot avail as a consideration for the payment of the balance due on the judgments : it is the duty of the debtor to seek his creditor for the purpose of payment. Where the law ascribes to one instrument a conclusive, and to another a prima facie character, the presumption is, that parties using either, intend it to operate according to its legal effect.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cecil County. These were two cases between the same parties, tried together in the court below upon the same evidence. The facts are briefly as follows : In August 1828, Evan Jones recovered two judgments against the Elkton Bank, before a justice of the peace, one for $10, debt, and 58-|- cents, costs, the other for $20, debt, and the same costs, with interest on each till paid. Upon these judgments two attachments were issued out of Cecil county court, on the 7th of May 1830, and laid to the amount of $15 in one case, and $25 in the other, in the hands of Thomas Ricketts, who was summoned as garnishee, and appeared and confessed credits in his hands in each case to the amounts attached, and on the 25th of October 1831, judgments of condemnation therefor were entered, with $6.75 costs, in each case. On the 12th of October 1843, two writs of scire facias to revive these judgments were issued, and after service and appearance the cases were continued from term to term until April 1845, when the death of Jones the plaintiff was suggested, and the appellant, his executor, admitted to prosecute them. The cases were then continued until October 1853, when the garnishee Ricketts pleaded to the sci. fas., payment of said judgments in full to Evan Jones the plaintiff’s testator, in his lifetime. Upon this plea issue was joined and the cases tried before a jury. Exception. The garnishee to sustain the issue on his part, offered in evidence the following paper ¡ —“March 16th 1842. Received of Thomas Ricketts thirty dollars and eighty-one cents, in full, of two attachments that were issued against said Ricketts, on account of a claim 1 had against the Elldon Bank, and is a receipt in full. Evan Jones'^—and proved the signature thereto, and that the sum of money therein mentioned was paid by the garnishee to the plaintiff’s testator. The plaintiff on his part proved by his attorney, that shortly before the date of this receipt, witness ascertained by search of the records, that these judgments had been entered against, said garnishee who was able to pay them ; that witness told said garnishee thereof, and wrote a letter to the plaintiff’s testator informing him of their existence, and gave the same to the garnishee to be delivered to said testator, the garnishee being about to call upon him to make some arrangement of the judgments; that witness delivered this letter to the garnishee at his solicitation, and upon his promise to give the same to said testator before he made any settlement with him. Evidence was also offered that the garnishee called upon said testator, and offered to give him $¡30 in full of the attachments issued upon these judgments, which the latter received, saying it was money he never expected to get, and executed the receipt above stated. It was further proved that the garnishee withheld the letter above mentioned, and did not deliver the same until after the execution of the receipt, and upon its delivery, immediately thereafter, the testator said to the garnishee, “You ought to have delivered that letter sooner,” but having read it, he expressed to the garnishee his entire satisfaction with the said payment, and after the departure of the garnishee, repeated to the witness his full satisfaction with the arrangement, and said he was well pleased therewith. It was also proved by said attorney, that when he wrote said letter apd at the time the garnishee was about to call upon said testator, the garnishee told witness that he owed the Elkton Bank about $30 or $31 only, and had always been ready and willing to pay it, and would have paid it long before if he had known to whom to pay it; that witness told the garnishee he ought to be willing to pay the principal and interest without costs, which the latter said he would do, and it was a settlement upon this basis, that witness in his said letter advised the said testator to make. It was further proved that at the time this $30 was paid and the receipt executed, the garnishee was abundantly able to pay the full amount of said judgments. The plaintiff then asked the following instruction to the jury. That the reception by the plaintiff’s testator, of the sum mentioned in said receipt, and the execution of said paper, the same not being under seal, is no bar to the recovery of the residue of the amount then due on said judgments, if the jury find that at the time of executing said receipt, there was a greater sum due thereon than is mentioned in said receipt., although they may find that said receipt was executed by the plaintiff’s testator, and he knowingly agreed to receive the sum then paid, and did receive it, and give said receipt in full satisfaction, by way of compromise of the judgments then held by him against said garnishee. This prayer the court (Constable, J.,) refused to grant, and to this ruling the plaintiff excepted, and the verdict and judgment being in favor of the garnishee, appealed.