Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantappeal
plaintifflease

Related Cases

Ogle v. Fuiten, 102 Ill.2d 356, 466 N.E.2d 224, 80 Ill.Dec. 772
View Case »
MacDonald v. MacDonald, 407 Mass. 196, 552 N.E.2d 533
View Case »
Lazar v. Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6891, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6901
View Case »
Godwin v. Godwin, 273 So.3d 16, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1296
View Case »
Bank of America, N.A. v. Judevine, 2015 IL App (1st) 140532, 26 N.E.3d 555, 389 Ill.Dec. 465
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ryan v. Ward, 3 Sickels 204, 48 N.Y. 204, 1872 WL 9794, 8 Am.Rep. 539

Facts

The plaintiff delivered hides to the defendants from February to August 1863, receiving weekly payments and issuing receipts for these payments. Some receipts were marked as 'in full,' but the referee found that a balance remained due to the plaintiff, which included a bonus that had been agreed upon by the defendants' authorized agent. The defendants appealed after the General Term affirmed the referee's report in favor of the plaintiff.

The facts are all found in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue

Is the plaintiff barred from recovering the balance due to him because he issued receipts in full for partial payments, despite the fact that the total amount owed was not fully paid?

Is the plaintiff cut off by these receipts from now recovering the balance actually due to him?

Rule

A receipt in full does not discharge a debt if the payment made is less than the total amount owed, and there is no consideration for the professed discharge.

A man cannot, by the payment of $1,500, pay an admitted debt of $2,000.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the receipts given by the plaintiff did not constitute a valid discharge of the debt owed. The referee found that the amount sought to be recovered was actually due, and since there was no dispute or compromise regarding the total amount, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the remaining balance despite the receipts.

In such case nothing less than a technical release, under seal, can bar the recovery.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment of the General Term, allowing the plaintiff to recover the balance due on the contract for the delivery of hides.

In my opinion the judgment of the General Term was correct and should be affirmed.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court found that the receipts did not bar him from recovering the balance owed, as there was no dispute or compromise regarding the total amount.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

You must be