| OCR Text |
Show 1 J&T3SR, 2d SSKXBS "[Wjhere a claim is disputed » uidated and the tender of a j draft in settlement thereof Ul character as to give, the etc*; tice that it must be accepter discharge of his claim' or n the retention and use of such draft constitutes an accord ;v: faction . . . ; and it is CittmMSt] P.SuSgS r:iD e and is therefore .not wrongful lev holding is a short cat to com-' stice, protects the debtor against and prevents unnecessary litiga- 1070. v. MOETOK 025 Ccrbin, Contracts § iijtlips Petroleum C^raim&s? rial that the 'creditor protest. Finally, appellant argues that iuct of the parties subsequent to .uted payment precludes a fix:d~ m otherwise present accord and accepting the tender in full Kiioh. To this end. appellant cites ., for in such case K*;hone conversations between it permits but two alternativtpH's attorneys, where HOH's at- .reject or accept in accordance? allegedly continued to press its condition.' [citations omitta-ainst the protection fund and P.2d at 18. fed a willingness to make an addi- In so holding, the court rejected vment. While some authorities gument that this enabled a dO'^d such continuing negotiations disputes "one small separable i*ie an earlier alleged accord and invoice received in the regularpon, -• 9-, Southern Coal Go, v. business" to make "a remittal 279 S.vV. 192 (Mo.App.lDHG), amount admittedly due," andfeY? the present California posi-have declared an accord and st? contra. In Potter v. Pacific because the creditor accepted lumber Co. of California, supra, concededly justly due him." p r n i a Supreme Court found a Pacific Coast Lumber Co. of $-°^d and satisfaction notwith- 37 Cal.2d 592, 234 P.2d 16 (if the fact that the debtor eontin-senting opinion adopting ic-o'Otmte alter the disputed ten-holding). Instead, the court ov-n made a second compromise "'The law wisely favors settle:-' caching this conclusion the where there is a real and ge:r^°^d: test between the parties, ancof.'er of compromise is not an ment is had without fraud Orsion that anything is"" due sentation, for an amount c. . . ' Compromises are favored upon as a compromise betwee' and a man is allowed to nem-flicting claims, such settlemfor the purchase of his peace be upheld, although such ainc;t prejudice to his rights. Ac-tcriaily less than the amount $ly, none of these factors the person to whom it is paid can be said to have deffeefld Thomas, 212 N.Y. 264, 106 Nhe positive position Uksn by de- Potter v. Pacific Coast Luml company in tendering the re- California, 234 P.2d at 22. e^ checks or drafts for accept- Apart from the above po!ic|fuli d j 3 c^rge of the respective ation. the holding in Pot£, o r frff* «ie consequences of avoids the otherwise technics/;/5 c a s n m S . « * * checks and cone er contravention of explicit "The court is in these cases l"c*ore find the district court's the alternative between holdiiu/*lcient!y supported by the creditor is a wrongdoer in Ci n accord with the law" of Cal-check or using the money, sK°tion for summary judgment that his conduct is operative1'^' granted. . tiles $e?y*ce Interior, Bofenda Noa. 72-1 United Sia^ -.ex, Inc., In-»?rY4MS01*- f-#kpp'elleefs. ?£4} S^erefeyy of the ivoids the otherwise technics ™ r" . "t W*? a na inclusion that the creditor l ^ ^ b^?™ establishment 2V when he retains the d e b t o r ^ a n d satisfaction." 234 P. An action sought judicial review oi the Secretary of Interior's cancellation Oi helium conservation contracts The united States District Court for the District of Kansas, Frank 0 Th*i<* J 36.1 F.Supp. 73, held that »>t u^em^nts of the National Environmental- Po'iiw Act had not been complied wl>h TV Secretary of the Interior'a-nd DirectX at the Bureau of Mines appealed fr%p Court of Appeals, William E. &,-•*.». Circuit Judge, reieetpfl 1 ^ 6 ^ ,X "'» to j u n c t i o n and held, under a rule oi statement_jvas sufficient and that re qiurements of the NatianafElfTir^en, Judgment reversed ^nd cause remanded with directions to dismiss re-tiom Breitenstein, Circuit Judt? concurring opinion. ge, filed a 1. Courts C^2S4{3) Helium .Act authorizing Secretary oi Interior to purchase helium did not vesf Secretary with such regulatory authority as to preclude federal court's jurisdiction to entertain injunction suit under National Environmental Policy Act. Helium Act Amendments of 196ft i 2 et seq., 50 U.S.C.A. § 167 et seq.;' national Environmental policy Act of ' • " • - •' • - • ^ - • . - ' . - . • - - • • - • •• |
