Christman v. Martin

Citations

• 7 Pa. Super. 568
• 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 342

Syllabus

<p>A ceord and satisfaction — Payment—Direction or appropriation — Effect of acceptance.</p> <p>A party paying money has a right to direct its application, and the refusal to return drafts, after explicit direction as to their application, ought to be regarded as an election to accept them for the purpose for which they are offered.</p> <p>Evidence — Payments purporting to be in full — Question for jury.</p> <p>A dispute arising as to the value of a carload of lumber incident to alleged defects, in an action to recover the price it was error to reject an offer on the part of defendant to prove that after inspection of the lumber by plaintiff’s representative an agreement was made by which plaintiff was to accept in full settlement the amount represented by certain drafts as in full settlement; that these drafts were remitted as payment in full received by plaintiff, who refused to return the same or credit defendant in full. Such offer tended to support the plaintiff’s case, and was proper for the consideration of the jury. The defendant’s case was not to be prejudiced by unauthorized application of the money, or by the fact that he used the lumber under the circumstances.</p>