J. NUMA JORDY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
E. C. MAXWELL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for an attorney against his client for the full agreed fee, holding that the client's payment of a lesser amount via check marked 'full settlement' did not constitute an accord and satisfaction. The court reaffirmed its established doctrine that acceptance of partial payment from a solvent debtor requires additional consideration beyond the partial payment itself.
The court held that acceptance of a lesser sum from a solvent debtor than the amount admittedly due does not constitute an accord and satisfaction. There must be some additional fact, circumstance, gain to the creditor, or inconvenience to the debtor to create consideration for the release. The form of payment (cashier's check) does not elevate the transaction beyond ordinary payment in specie.
“this court is committed to the doctrine that the acceptance of a lesser sum from a solvent debtor than that admittedly then and there due, is not an accord and satisfaction of the entire indebtedness”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that partial payment alone cannot discharge a full debt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaxwell, an attorney, agreed to represent Jordy in a federal action against the J. J. McCaskill Company for a percentage fee of any recovery. Maxwell …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
— Maxwell recovered judgment against Jordy for the balance due upon an agreed attorney’s fee. The defense sought to be interposed was in the nature of an accord and satisfaction by the acceptance of a lesser amount in full settlement of the claim.
It appears that the fee agreed upon was a percentage of the amount to be recovered by Jordy in an action in the Federal Court against the J. J. McCaskill Company. Judge Maxwell succeeded in securing a verdict for the full amount claimed, but pending the consideration by the court a compromise was in negotiation between the parties and Jordy asked his attorney if he would reduce the fee, which suggestion was promptly refused. Thereafter the case having been compromised, Maxwell demanded payment of his fee, being the agreed percentage of the compromise settlement. Jordy then wrote Maxwell, enclosing check for a lesser amount, upon which was written “Full and complete settlement of fee in Jordy v. McCaskill.” The check was cashed by Maxwell, who promptly demanded the balance due and upon this not being done brought this action.
Whatever the holding of other courts, whether influenced by statutes or not, this court is committed to the doctrine that the accex>tance of a lesser sum from a solvent debtor than that admittedly then and there due, is not an accord and satisfaction of the entire indebtedness. There must be some fact or circumstance, some gain to the creditor or inconvenience to the debtor, to create a consideration for the release. See Spann v. Baltzell, 1 Fla. 301, text 315; Sanford v. Abrams, 24 Fla. 181, 2 South. Rep. 373; Dickerson v. Campbell, 47 Fla. 147, 35 South. Rep. 986.
There is nothing in the fact that the partial payment was made through the form of a cashier’s check. This is but one of the numerous agencies through which most of our payments between persons living in different localities are made, and is in a sense but a medium of exchange, and when accepted of no higher dignity than a payment in specie.
The judgment is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, J., concur
Taylor, Hocker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryan v. Fredrick H. Howell, 92 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1926)…or if words of similar import had been written on the check. Payment of part of an undisputed debt does not discharge the whole in the absence of an agreement by both parties to that effect, and such agreement will not be implied. Jordy v. Maxwell, 62 Fla. 236, 56 So. 946; L. R. A. 1917 A, 719; 3 Williston on Contracts, sections 1852-55. But such is not the case as to unliquidated and disputed claims, as is well shown by section 1854 of 3rd Williston, which reads as follows; “It seems obvious that nothing…
-
Sendoya v. Chattanooga Brewing Co., 73 Fla. 648 (Fla. 1917)…the effect of satisfaction. Sanford v. Abrams, 24 Fla. 181, 2 South. Rep. 373. There is evidence that a payment as found was made on the judgment and the. finding is not contrary to but is in accord with the entire evidence. Jordan v. Maxwell, 62 Fla. 236, 56 South. Rep. 946. The facts that the firm of Montiel & Sendoya was insolvent and had dissolved, and that the defendant Sendoya was-at the time insolvent are immaterial and there is no agreement or binding circumstance shown making the payment o…
-
The CASA Marina Hotel Co. v. Barnes, 105 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…he appellee. That there can be no indebtedness without a legal consideration is such a fundamental principle that citation-of authority’ is unnecessary. Although not in point upon the facts the language of Mr. Justice Cockerell in Jordy v. Maxwell, 62 Fla. 236, 56 So. 946, is an indication of what constitutes consideration in cases where the payment of a debt is to support a new agreement. “Whatever the holding of other courts, whether influenced by statutes or not, this court is committed to the doctrin…
Authorities Cited
- Spann v. Baltzell, 1 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1847)
- Sanford v. A. St.-Clair Abrams, 24 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1888)
- Dickerson v. Campbell, 47 Fla. 147 (Fla. 1904)