Hodgson v. Phippin

Bond, O. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal question is that of the meaning and effect of a tender and payment into court of part of an amount sued for, “in full satisfaction of the plaintiff’s demand.” Did those words constitute merely a statement of the defendant’s ⁹⁹ contention that this was the full amount due, and leave the plaintiffs free to withdraw the amount without affecting the remainder of their demand, or did the words., on the contrary, impose a condition that the amount tendered and paid in be accepted and withdrawn only in satisfaction of the whole demand? A verdict was rendered for the plaintiffs for the whole demand, and a subsequent allowance of interest on the admitted and tendered portion for the period between the verdict and final judgment on it is objected to by the defendant on the ground that the admitted portion was in effect paid to the plaintiffs by the earlier payment into court. This court, concurring in the conclusion of the trial court, is of opinion that the tender and payment into court were conditional, did not amount to a payment to the plaintiffs, and were without effect on the right to interest on the whole amount recovered.

The suit was at law, for money received by' the defendant for the plaintiffs., and the defendant, on August 20th, 1928, pleaded the tender and paid into court the amount of $6,301.98, in the manner and form stated, and filed a plea of set-off for $1,250, which equalled the remainder of the plaintiffs’ demand. The suit therefore resolved itself into a contest on the plea of set-off. Verdict was rendered for the plaintiffs on October 16th, 1928, for the total amount of $7,551.98, and a judgment nisi was duly entered on the same day. A motion for a new trial, and a motion for a hearing before the court in banc on the questions raised by the motion for a new trial, deferred the entry of final judgment until August 30th, 1929, when the latter was overruled.

And, under the direction of the court, that final judgment was made to include interest on the full sum of $7,551.98 from the date of the verdict, October 16th, 1928. The ordinary understanding of a tender of a portion of an amount claimed in full satisfaction of the whole seems to be that it constitutes a conditional offer, that acceptance of the money involves acceptance of the condition, and results in an accord and satisfaction of the whole claim, discharging the unpaid portion. Hunt, Tender, sec. 240. And this court ¹⁰⁰ has held that acceptance of such a tender has that result even though the claimant protests that he does not accept the terms attached, hut takes the money only in part payment.

Schaffenacker v. Hoopes, 113 Md. 111, 117 . A subsequent payment into court in full satisfaction of the demand can have no different meaning and effect; the payment into court is only