
    Albion S. Burgess vs. Denison Paper Manufacturing Company.
    Oxford.
    Opinion March 8, 1887.
    
      Accord and satisfaction.
    
    The defense of acéord and satisfaction is not made out, by showing that the plaintiif promised to accept, for labor already performed by him, a deed of land from a third person in satisfaction of his claim, it appearing that thé deed was executed but not delivered nor tendered.
    On exceptions and motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.
    Assumpsit for labor performed.
    
      The verdict was for plaintiff for one hundred and six dollars and twenty-three cents.
    The opinion states the point raised by the exceptions and material facts.
    
      H. A. Randall, for the plaintiff.
    
      John P. Swasey, for the defendant.
   Peters, C. J.

The plaintiff has a claim against the defendants for labor. The defendants rely on an alleged accord and satisfaction, contending that the plaintiff agreed to take a deed from a third party in satisfaction of his claim. The defendants obtained the deed but did not deliver it, relying on the plaintiff to call for it. "The accord is the agreement for the reception of the thing in discharge of the debt; the satisfaction is the actual reception of the thing.” Whar. Con. § 996; Bragg v. Pierce 53 Maine, 65. Here there was accord but not satisfaction. The deed was not received. Nothing short of an actual reception of the deed would constitute a defense.

Exceptions overruled.

Walton, Virgin, Libbey, Emery and Haskell, JJ., concurred.  