Thomas v. Hill Top Section of German Beneficial Union

Citations

• 260 Pa. 1
• 103 A. 504
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 457

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Defenses — Receipt — Payment “on account of contract in full” — Acquittance—Dispute■—■Consideration—Case for jury.</p> <p>1. The acceptance of a smaller sum in payment of a larger amount presently due is no bar to an action for the balance, unless in settlement of a dispute, as consideration therefor.</p> <p>2. In an action on a building contract and for extras furnished in connection therewith, the defense was that plaintiff had been paid in full by direct payments to him and through the payment of bills of third parties for liabilities incurred by him. At the trial there was a conflict in the evidence concerning the alleged payments to persons other than plaintiff, on the latter’s account, and defendant largely relied upon a receipt or voucher, endorsed by plaintiff, reading, “The treasurer of [defendant] will please pay [plaintiff], or order......on account of contract in full.” The trial judge ruled that in view of the circumstances and considering the lapse of time (over five years) since the building was completed and the voucher endorsed, such receipt was conclusive evidence of a complete settlement. The action was brought within the statutory period. Held, (1) there was not sufficient evidence to show a dispute between the parties at the time the voucher was signed, (2) there was not sufficient evidence that the sum .represented by the voucher was expressly tendered or accepted on the basis of a settlement in full, (3) the phraseology of the voucher was too vague to be considered, as a matter of law, as a complete acquittance, and (4) the lower court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant.</p>