Cornelius Ryan, Respondent v. Richmond Ward, Appellants

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that receipts stating payment in full do not extinguish the plaintiff’s right to recover the remaining balance on the hide contract because no consideration or settlement was given; part payment alone is insufficient to discharge the debt. The Court relied on the principle that only a technical release under seal can bar recovery. A concurring opinion agreed with the result but emphasized that receipts are merely prima facie evidence and may be contradicted by parol evidence. Justice 030concurrence, concurring, would have held the same outcome.