Majority
Headnote
Action upon Assigned Claim fob Work and Materials—Defense-Payment Under Terms of Contract Before Assignment.—In an action upon an assigned claim for work and materials, where the answer set up that a payment of $396.50 was made under the terms of the contract to the assignor, such plea is not in the nature of a counterclaim against the assignee, but is in the nature of a plea of payment made to the plaintiff's assignor at his instance, and where it was proved and found to have been made prior to the assignment, it was properly allowed as a payment on the assigned claim.The action was upon an assigned claim growing out of a contract between plaintiff’s assignor and defendant, whereby the court finds that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff’s assignor, on account of the performance of certain work and the furnishing of certain materials, the sum of $1,864.01; that defendant had paid plaintiff’s assignor before the assignment the sum of $1,342.69; that, in addition, defendant had paid before the assignment for certain materials furnished plaintiff’s assignor in the work, and which under the contract he was given authority to pay, the further sum of $396.50, which would, under the findings, leave a balance due plaintiff of $124.82. During the progress of the trial leave was given defendant to amend his answer upon payment of $13 costs. The latter amount the court by stipulation incorporated in the judgment, and gave plaintiff a judgment for $137.82. Plaintiff appeals upon the ground that the credit of $396.50 was improperly allowed, because it was in .the nature of a counterclaim, and no averments appear with reference to payment before the assignment.
The averments with reference to the payment of $396.50 were not in the nature of a counterclaim, but were matters of defense as a plea of payment made at the instance of plaintiff’s assignor. It is averred that under the contract between the parties the right to pay this sum was accorded defendant. No demurrer was filed to the answer or amended answer, and the same were treated by the parties as presenting proper issues. The court finds as a fact that the
An evident misprint appears in the conclusions of law, whereby a seeding disparity between the findings and such conclusions exists as to the amount of the contract price, but it in no manner affects the judgment as rendered, and needs no correction or attention.
Judgment affirmed.
Shaw, J., and James, J., concurred.