
    Asa Watson and John Barnard v. Hubbard Joslyn.
    
      Sufficiency and construction of a plea of payment and satisfaction.
    
    A plea, to a writ of review, that the plaintiffs had, after the rendition of the judgment sought to be reviewed, paid to the defendant, and the defendant accepted a given sum in satisfaction and discharge of said judgment and the subject matter thereof and of the suit in which it was obtained, held sufficient on demurrer.
    The payment alleged, will be regarded as a voluntary payment unless the contrary be replied.
    Writ of Reyiew. The declaration alleged the commencement of a suit in favor of the defendant, against the plaintiffs by an attachment of their property; a continuance of the cause, for notice, by the justice before whom it was returnable; and a final rendition of judgment in the defendant’s favor, without notice to the plaintiffs; that the defendant became recognized to refund whatever should be recovered by a writ of review, &c. The defendants-plead “ that after judgment was recovered by him, the said Joslyn, against the said Barnard and Watson, by default, as set forth in the plaintiff’s said writ of review and before the commencement of the said writ of review, to wit, on the 28th day of February, 1852, at Barton, in the county of Orleans, the said Barnard and Watson paid to the said Joslyn, the sum of fifty-eight dollars and seventy cents in full satisfaction and discharge of said judgment, and the subject mattter upon which said judgment was predicated, and in full satisfaction and discharge of said suit in favor of the said Joslyn and against the said Barnard and Watson, and the said Joslyn accepted and received of the said Barnard and Watson, said sum of fifty-eight dollars and seventy cents, in full satisfaction and discharge of said judgment, and in fuE satisfaction and discharge of the subject matter upon which said judgment was predicated, and in. full satisfaction and discharge of said suit in favor of the said Joslyn and against the said Barnard and Watson.”
    To this plea the plaintiffs demurred. The county eouz’t, — Borland, J., presiding, — adjudged the plea sufficient, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.
    Exceptions by the plaintiffs.
    
      H. F. Prentiss, for the plaintiffs.
    
      J. L. Edwards, for the defendant.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

The object of this suit is to obtain a trial in a case, which has been defaulted before a justice of the peace, and a bond given, as the statute requires in a case wliei-e a default is taken, and the party has had no notice of the suit.

The plea in bar alleges that before the present suit was brought, the plaintiffs paid to the defendant a given sum of money, naming it, in fuE satisfaction and discharge of the said judgment sought to be reviewed, and of the subject matter upon which said judgment was predicated, and in full satisfaction and discharge of said suit, and then avers an acceptance of the said sum of money in full satisfaction and discharge of the same.

To this, there is a demurrer, and we think the plea is a full answer to the action. It is to be taken on this plea, that the payment was voluntary, and if, as has been argued, the payment was enforced by means of an execution on the judgment, and that would have availed the party, the plea should not have been met by a demurrer. As the plea stands, it is in effect an accord and satisfaction, not executory but executed, and hi full of the judgment, and the cause of action upon which it is predicated.

The judgment of the county eourt should be affirmed with costs; but on motion it is reversed pro forma, and a repleader awarded, on the payment of costs, &c.  