Meaker Galvanizing Co. v. Charles E. McInnes & Co.

Citations

• 272 Pa. 561
• 116 A. 400
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 869

Syllabus

<p>Accord and satisfaction — Performance — Agreement to accept promise in satisfaction — Consideration—Written evidence — Law for court.</p> <p>1. In an accord and satisfaction, the performance generally is the carrying out of an agreement of accord, but it may be expressly agreed, or the circumstances may clearly show, that the promise or agreement of accord itself is to be taken in satisfaction of the original demand, and, when that is the case, the promise or undertaking, if supported by a sufficient consideration, is to be accepted as equivalent to performance or execution.</p> <p>2. An adjustment of unliquidated damages is a sufficient consideration for the promise.</p> <p>3. Where there is no conflict in the facts, and the determination of the intention of. the parties as to the accord, rests solely on the interpretation to be placed on their letters, the question is one of law for the court.</p> <p>Practice, G. P. — Affidavit of defense — Fraud—Insufficient averment.</p> <p>4. An affidavit of defense averring fraud is evasive and insufficient, if it does not aver facts showing the extent of the fraud or misrepresentations averred.</p> <p>Practice, G. P. — Statement—Foreign corporation — Registration —Doing business — Presumption of legality — Affidavit of defense.</p> <p>5. A foreign corporation may ordinarily maintain an action to enforce its contracts, within the State. It is restricted only when “doing business” within the meaning of the Pennsylvania registration law, and it has failed to register.</p> <p>6. No presumption arises that a foreign corporation in bringing a suit in this State, is a wrongdoer, and has failed to perform its legal obligation of registering.</p> <p>7. It need not in its statement of claim negative its violation of a penal statute.</p> <p>8. Where, in such case, the statement of claim shows a Pennsylvania contract, and that the transaction involved interstate commerce, but does not show that the company plaintiff was “doing busines