Appellant filed a bill in equity seeking an accounting from appellee and the return of monies which appellant contended had been overpaid by him in connection with debts which he owed appellee. Respondent (appellee) filed answer and a plea of settlement or accord and satisfaction and evidence was taken ore tenus by the court on that plea. From a final decree denying relief and dismissing the bill, the complainant brings this appeal.
The case arises out of the following facts: During the period from November, 1951 through December, 1955, appellant borrowed various sums of money from the appellee and gave appellee various mortgages on real estate as security for these advances. The evidence shows that appellant, in 1951 was heavily indebted to certain banks and applied to appellee for loans for the purpose of paying off these indebtednesses. In that year appellee advanced appellant $11,500 cash at one time and at a subsequent time advanced him $1,270.92. This was the first of a series of transactions which continued until February, 1955 when appellant was indebted to appellee in a sum exceeding $21,000. At that time appellee held various mortgages on all of appellant's real estate and mortgages on certain of his personal property. In that month, February, 1955, appellee was paid $15,120 by appellant on the indebtednesses. Some of the mortgages were then cancelled by appellee. An additional mortgage was executed by appellant to appellee at that time to secure a balance due on the indebtedness of $6,142.
On December 9, 1955, appellant secured a loan from one A. B. Finklea of $4,751.53 to pay all indebtedness which remained owing to appellee. The parties met together and appellant gave to appellee a check for $4,651.96 for this purpose. Subsequently, appellee returned by check $738 which the evidence shows was paid by appellant due to a mistake in addition. All mortgages held by appellee on appellant's property were cancelled. At the time appellant borrowed the money from Finklea to pay off the appellee, he stated, according to the evidence, that he was not satisfied with the settlement but that it was the best he could do.
The trial court found in this case that there was a dispute between the parties as to the amount due on the indebtedness. They got together and agreed upon an amount to be paid which would extinguish all obligations. This was undoubtedly a settlement between the parties—an accord and satisfaction. As was pointed out in Arnold & Co. v. Gibson, 216 Ala. 314, 113 So. 25, 27;
"The general rule established by the decisions is:
Or, stated another way, an accord and satisfaction is the adjustment of a disagreement as to what is due from one party to another, and the payment of the amount so agreed upon. Harrison v. Henderson, 67 Kan. 194, 72 P. 875, 62 L.R.A. 760, 100 Am.St.Rep. 386.
The trial court found that the parties had agreed upon a figure and that the transactions between them were settled in the final transaction of December 9, 1955. There was then no need to order an accounting.
This action of the lower court was consonant with well-settled principles of law.
The trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses. He found that there was a settlement of all indebtednesses on December 9, 1955, and that "there was no fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or wrongdoing on the part of either of the parties. The settlement was made between them, has been carried out, and all
It was not error to refuse to admit into evidence the statement of account prepared by respondent's attorney which was declared incorrect and which did not contain the original entries of the transactions in question. First National Bank of Talladega v. Chaffin, 118 Ala. 246, 24 So. 80; Boutwell v. Spurlin Mercantile Co., 203 Ala. 482, 83 So. 481.
The decree is therefore affirmed.
STAKELY, GOODWYN, MERRILL and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.