It is held that a creditor who agrees to receive a less sum in full satisfaction for a greater debt, and who receives this sum and gives a receipt in full, may yet sue for the balance of his debt. (ww) But if the promise to give a smaller sum is accompanied by additional security, here is a consideration which makes valid the ceipt by a creditor of part of his debt then due, is not a good defence by way of accord and satisfaction, to an action for the remainder, although the creditor agreed to receive it in full satisfaction. See ante, pp. *619, *620, and notes. And see further Warren v. Skinner, 20 Conn. 660, an excellent case; Daniels v. Hatch, 1 N. J. 391; Adams v. Tapling, 4 Mod. 88; Worthington v. Wigley, 8 Bing. N. C. 454; Smith v. Bartholomew, 1 Met. 276; Mitchell v. Cragg, 10 M. & W. 367; Greenwood v. Lidbetter, 12 Price, 183; Hinckley v. Arey, 27 Me. 362; Harder v. Coe, 6 Gill, 189; White v. Jordan, 27 Me. 370; Eve v. Moseley, 2 Strobh. 203. But this rule applies only when the claim thus settled is a liquidated and undisputed one. Longridge v. Dorville, 6 B. & Ald. 117; Wilkinson v. Byers, 1 A. & E. 106; Reynolds v. Pinhowe, Cro. Eliz. 429; Atlee v. Backhouse, 3 M. & W. 65; MoDaniels v. Lapham, 21 Vt. 228; Stockton v. Frey, 4 Gill, 406; Palmerton v. Huxford, 4 Denio, 166; Tuttle v. Tuttle, 12 Met. 661. And if the debtor give his negotiable note for part of an undisputed debt, and this be accepted in full satisfaction, the right to sue for the balance is gone. See ante, p. *619, n. (z). Or the note of a third person. See ante, p. *619, n. (a); Booth v. Smith, 3 Wend. 66. In Bruce v. Bruce, 4 Dana, 530, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had agreed to accept the promise of a third person, in full satisfaction of the note sued on. The only evidence in support of the plea was an indorsement signed by the third party, and in these words: "I am to pay the within note;" and a credit of the same date, still legible, though lines had been drawn through it, for a sum paid by the third party. Held, that this was no evidence of an accord and satisfaction of the note which remained in the plaintiff's possession. So if the creditor derives any benefit from the part payment to which he was not entitled, and he accepts this additional benefit, together with the part payment, as a full satisfaction, this is a good discharge of his whole claim. Douglass v. White, 3 Barb. Ch. 621; Hinckley v. Arey, 27 Me. 362. As if part is paid and received in full satisfaction before the whole is due. Brooks v. White, 2 Met. 283; Goodnow v. Smith, 18 Pick. 414; Smith v. Brown, 3 Hawks, 680. And if the creditor receives any specific property, either from the debtor or a third person, in full satisfaction, this is a good discharge whatever be the value of the thing thus received, there being no fraud. Reed v. Bartlett, 10 Pick. 273; Blinn v. Chester, 6 Day, 800. And see ante, p. *619, n. (z).

(u) See preceding note.

(v) Keeler v. Neal, 2 Watts, 424. A plea of accord, etc, must show that the plaintiff received something valuable. Davis n. Noaks, 3 J. J. Marsh. 497; Logan v. Austin, 1 Stew. 476.

(w) Preston v. Christmas, 2 Wile. 86.

(ww) Harriman v. Harriman, 12 Gray, 341; Bunge v. Koop, 5 Rob. 1. But see Pepper v. Aiken, 2 Bush, 251.

At least this must be the case where the debtor and the stranger are principal and agent, or the transaction is such that the debtor may make it the act of the stranger as his agent, by his subsequent adoption and ratification.

An accord and satisfaction made before breach of covenant or contract, is not a bar to an action for a subsequent breach. (z)

(wx) Keeler v. Salisbury, 83 N. Y. 648.

(x) Thus, in Turner v. Browne, 3 C. B. 167, in debt for money had and received, etc., the defendant pleaded, that after the accruing of the debts and causes of action, the defendant executed a deed, securing to the plaintiff a certain annuity; and that the plaintiff then accepted and received the same of and from the defendant in full satisfaction and discharge of all the said several debts and causes of action. The plaintiff replied, that no memorial of the annuity deed was enrolled pursuant to the statute; that the annuity being in arrear, the plaintiff brought an action to recover the amount of the arrears; that the defendant pleaded in bar of that action the non-enrolment of the memorial, and that thereupon the plaintiff elected and agreed that the indenture should be null and void, as pleaded by the defendant, and discontinued the action. Held, a good answer to the plea, inasmuch as it showed that the accord and satisfaction thereby set up, had been rendered nugatory and unavailing by the act of the defendant himself. Upon the same principle it was held in Hall v. Smallwood, Peake's Add. Cas. 13, that if a bill of sale of goods it given in satisfaction of a bond debt, and it is afterwards discovered that the obligor had previously committed an act of bankruptcy, the obligee may abandon the bill of sale and sue out a commission against the obligor; and a co-obligor cannot plead the bill of sale as an accord and satisfaction, in an action against him on the bond. Coles v. Soulsby, 21 Cal. 47.

(y) Booth v. Smith, 8 Wend. 66; Webster v. Wyser, 1 Stew. 184.

(z) And it is immaterial whether the covenant is to pay at a time certain, or upon a contingency. Healey v. Spence, 8 Exch. 668, 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 476; Mayor of Berwick v. Oswald, 1 Ellis & B. 295,16 Eng. L. & Eq. 286; Snow v. Franklin, 1 Lutw. 358; Alden v. Blague, Cro, Jac. 99; Heal v. Sheffield, id. 254; Kaye v. Waghorne, 1 Taunt 428; Smith v. Brown, 3 Hawks, 580; Harper v. Hampton, 1 Harris & J. 678.

1 In Goddard v. O'Brien, 9 Q. B. D. 37, it was held, that the acceptance of a check for £100, payable on demand, is a good accord and satisfaction for a debt of £125 7s 9d. See Savage v. Everman, 70 Penn. St. 315; Bull v. Bull, 43 Conn. 455.