Browne v. Merchants Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Powe v. Jackson

    109 So. 2d 546 (Miss. 1959)   Cited 11 times

    II. A minor receiving workmen's compensation benefits under the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act, may, pursuant to authority of a decree of the proper chancery court, make and deliver a valid and binding release of all claims of every kind, including future compensation benefits. Browne v. Merchants Co., 186 Miss. 398, 191 So. 59; Kimbrall v. Louisville RR. Co., 94 Miss. 396, 48 So. 230; Cilibrasi v. Reiter, 229 P.2d 394; Walters v. Blackledge, 220 Miss. 485, 71 So.2d 433; Fort Worth Lloyds v. Haygood, 246 S.W.2d 865; Sec. 159, Constitution 1890; Sec. 448, Code 1942; Dunn's Miss. Workmen's Comp., p. 114. III. There exists no right of exoneration from contingent liability to a carrier paying workmen's compensation benefits to an employee, if the employee has previously released the third party tort-feasor, from liability for the injuries sustained, as the liability of the carrier is terminated by the employee's actions. Sanders v. Cities Service Oil Co. (Fla.), 46 So.2d 597; Robbins v. National Veneer Lbr. Co. (Ind.), 88 N.E.2d 773; Greehn v. Miller Brown, Inc., 90 N.Y.S.2d 724, 275 App. Div. 975; Taylor v. Mount Vernon-Woodberry Mills, 211 S.C. 414, 45 S.E.2d 809; Gardner v. City of Columbia Police Dept. (S.C.), 57 S.E.2d 308; Stove v. George W. Helme Co., 184 Va. 1051, 37 S.E.2d 70; Terminal Shipping Co. v

  2. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Perrin

    192 So. 12 (Miss. 1939)   Cited 3 times

    Accord and satisfaction cannot be extended by mere influence. Wunderlich v. State Highway Commission, 183 Miss. 428; Brown v. Merchants Co., 191 So. 58; Dewees v. Bostick Lumber Manufacturing Co., 96 Miss. 253; 1 C.J.S., page 469, page 522, par. 33, and page 525, par. 33 B; Cooper and Rock v. Y. M.V. Railroad Co., 82 Miss. 634; Greener Sons v. Cain Sons, 137 Miss. 33, 101 So. 859. Where a person accepts a tender, but not in full of all demands, this acceptance will not conclude him from claiming more.

  3. D.H. Overmyer Co. v. Loflin

    440 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1971)   Cited 72 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Thus the presence of an uncertainty here supports rather than detracts from the vitality of this settlement. See Browne v. Merchants Co., 186 Miss. 398, 191 So. 58 (1939); W.J. Perryman Co. v. Penn Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 324 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1963); 15 Am.Jur.2d Compromise and Settlement § 11 (1964). Next Overmyer argues that the payments to Loflin were made through inadvertence and a mistake of fact, and that such inadvertence and mistake vitiated any accord and satisfaction that might otherwise have resulted.

  4. American Olean Tile Co. v. Morton

    247 Miss. 886 (Miss. 1963)   Cited 12 times

    II. The appellees — having for a valuable consideration by the compromise settlement agreement or bond of May 9th, 1962, specifically agreed that all prerequisites to suit had been fulfilled and met — could not defend this suit on the ground that appellant did not give notice of its claim within ninety days after the furnishing of material. Allen v. Berkmier (Texas), 216 S.W. 647; Batson v. Baldwin Co. (W. Va.), 84 S.E. 887; Bennett v. Beetle (Cal.), 75 P. 843; Bourquin Co. v. Chester Construction Co. (N.Y.), 104 F.2d 648; Browne v. Merchants Co., 186 Miss. 398, 191 So. 58; Byrne v. Cummins, 41 Miss. 192; Chancellor v. Melvin, 221 Miss. 590, 52 So.2d 360; City of Irontown v. Harrison Construction Co., 212 Fed. 353; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Birzer (Ohio), 101 N.E.2d 408; Continental Casualty Co. v. Pierce, 170 Miss. 67, 154 So. 279; Cook v. Pitts, 114 Miss. 39, 74 So. 777; Copiah Hardware Co. v. Johnson, 123 Miss. 624, 86 So. 369; Cross v. Field, 244 Miss. 397, 141 So.2d 733; Crowell Lumber Grain Co. v. Ryan Co. (Neb.), 193 N.W. 609; D.L. Fair Tie Co. v. Warrell, 147 Miss. 412, 112 So. 24; Field v. Weir, 28 Miss. 56; Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Redmond, 144 Miss. 749, 111 So. 366; Fleisher Engineering v. United States, 311 U.S. 14, 85 L.Ed. 12; Fore v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 129 Miss. 497, 92 So. 628; Gammill Co. v. Guesnard, 167 Miss. 868, 150 So. 214; Hickey v. Collum (Minn.), 50 N.W. 918; Hill v. Bowers (Kansas), 26 P. 13; Houston Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 217 F.2d 727; Hunter v. Blanchard, 18 Ill. 318; Hyak Lumber Co. v

  5. Aguirre v. Hamlin

    327 P.2d 349 (Idaho 1958)   Cited 3 times

    "Parties may settle any part of a controversy and leave the rest for litigation. So a compromise and settlement of litigation need not embrace all the matters in issue; adjustment of single issues, although not necessarily determinative of the outcome, should be encouraged." Wolverine Ins. Co. v. Klomparens, 273 Mich. 493, 263 N.W. 724; Browne v. Merchants Co., 186 Miss. 398, 191 So. 58; Applewhite v. Sessions, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 301; Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co. v. Ciaccio, 7 Cir., 1930, 38 F.2d 153. Appellant's assignments of error are meritorious.

  6. McGehee v. McGehee

    85 So. 2d 799 (Miss. 1956)   Cited 19 times
    In McGehee v. McGehee, 227 Miss. 170, 85 So.2d 799, cited by appellee, there was a forbearance to sue, which is, and has been held to be, sufficient consideration for a promise.

    Miller v. Bank of Holly Springs, 131 Miss. 55, 95 So. 129; Smaller War Plants Corp. v. Queen City Lumber Co., 200 Miss. 627, 27 So.2d 531; Whitworth v. Harris, 40 Miss. 483. B. Duress. Middlesex Banking Co. v. Field, 84 Miss. 646, 37 So. 139, 669; Brown v. Merchants Co., 186 Miss. 398, 191 So. 58; Davis v. Mississippi Cent. RR. Co., 46 Miss. 552; Freeman v. Wilson, 51 Miss. 329; Gulf S.I. RR. Co. v. Sullivan, 155 Miss. 1, 119 So. 501; Hines v. Hambrick, 210 Miss. 358, 49 So.2d 690; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hall, 152 Miss. 413, 118 So. 826; Osborn v. Thomas, 221 Miss. 682, 74 So.2d 757; Strong v. Cowsen, 197 Miss. 289, 19 So.2d 813; 17 Am. Jur. pp. 873, 881-82, 892, 904, 906; A.L.I., Restatement of the Law (Contracts), Secs. 492-93; Griffith's Miss. Chancery Practice, Sec. 589. C. Certain provisions of the agreement necessary to its validity were never carried out or fulfilled. Garner v. Stuart, 222 Miss. 290, 75 So.2d 747; Garner v. Sperry, 173 Miss. 11, 161 So. 703; Grissom v. Livingston, 213 Miss. 424, 57 So.2d 144; Hall v. Eastman, Gardiner Co., 89 Miss. 588, 43 So. 2; Rubel v. Rubel, 221 Miss. 848, 75 So.2d 59; 12 Am. Jur., pp. 745-49, 772-74, 777-78, 784-86, 793-95.