Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
PUGH v. LONG, 1932 — 58 F.2d 882 · caselaw · US
General
PUGH v. LONG
58 F.2d 882·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
PUGH v. LONG.
No. 5439.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Argued April 7, 1932.
Decided April 25, 1932.
Dean Hill Stanley, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
Irving Diener, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The case is here upon a writ of error to review a judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of defendant in error. The facts are these:
Defendant in error, whom we shall call plaintiff, agreed to sell and deliver to plaintiff in error, whom we shall call defendant, a carload of turkeys. The price per pound was based upon grades. Upon arrival of the car, defendant, made a superficial examination, and, without more, delivered to plaintiff cheek for the price of the turkeys on the basis of plaintiff’s grading. The same afternoon defendant discovered that the turkeys were not up to grade, and notified plain tiff accordingly and directed him not to cash the cheek. Defendant thereupon had the turkeys regraded by an expert grader, and immediately advised plaintiff of the result of this regrading, and at the same time mailed to him a cheek for a smaller amount than the first check, and marked on the cheek “Payment in full on ear F. G. E. 35188,” which was the ear in which the turkeys had been delivered. Plaintiff received the check, cashed it, and later informed defendant that it would not be accepted in full payment. The action below resulted.
The question which we have to decide is whether the acceptance and cashing by the plaintiff of defendant’s check marked “Payment in full” constituted under the circumstances an accord and satisfaction. We think it did, and that the ease is controlled by Andrews v. Haller Wall Paper Co., 32 App. D. C. 392, 16 Ann. Cas. 192, in which the subject is fully discussed and to which we refer as expressing our views of the applicable law in the case at bar.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial in accordance with this decision.
Reversed and remanded.