35 Minn. 174 | Minn. | 1886
We are compelled to the conclusion that the finding of the court that the settlement between the parties did not include the items of $54.83 and $3'3 is contrary to the undisputed evidence. The instrument “F” executed by plaintiff on the settlement, whether considered a receipt or a contract, is, in any view of the ease, prima facie evidence that every claim for “special” or extra work was included. Plaintiff offered no evidence in explanation of this settlement, and there is nothing to show that it was not just as the writing states — “of all special work done on defendant’s house, ” and “in full of all claims to date.”
Plaintiff, however, contends that the amount agreed on at this settlement not having been paid in full, it was a case of an unexecuted accord, or an accord without satisfaction, and therefore no bar to a suit on the original claim, just as if no settlement had ever been made. The facts are that plaintiff had an unliquidated and disputed claim against defendant for some $1,500 for alleged “extra” work on his house. The parties, by way of settlement and compromise, liquidated it at $800, which both agreed and assented to as the
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
