Accord and Satisfaction—Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish in Action to Recover for Clearing a Lot.—In this action to recover a balance alleged to be due for clearing a lot, the evidence justifies a finding to the effect that the original claim of the plaintiff’s assignor 'was extinguished by the execution of an accord and satisfaction.

. Id.—Definition and Effect of Accord and Satisfaction.—The phrase “accord and satisfaction,” as it is known and applied in the law, means the substitution of a new agreement for and in satisfaction of a pre-existing agreement between the same parties. More minutely defined, an agreement of accord and satisfaction is one whereby one of two parties, having a right of action against the other upon a claim arising out of an existing agreement, agrees to accept from the other party something in satisfaction of such right of action different from and usually less than that which might be recovered upon the original obligation. The effect of such agreement when executed is to extinguish the antecedent liability.

Id.—Prior Controversy—Existence of Bona Fide Dispute.—An agreement of accord and satisfaction presupposes a prior controversy concerning the relative rights of the -parties under the pre-existing agreement; and before a dispute concerning a claim for money alleged to be due under an existing contract can be ma'de the basis of an agreement of accord and satisfaction, the dispute must be shown to be bona fide; but it is not required, in order to validate an executed agreement of accord and satisfaction, that the circumstances of the transaction upon which it is founded should affirmatively show that there is room for an honest dispute.

Id.—Foundation fob Dispute—Whether Essential to Satisfaction. —If a debt or claim is disputed at the time of payment, the payment, when accepted, of a part of the whole debt is good satisfaction, and it matters not that, there was no solid foundation for the dispute. The test in such case is, Was the dispute honest or fraudulent? If honest it affords a basis for an accord between the parties, which the law favors, and the execution of which is the satisfaction.

Id.—Bona Fide Dispute—Question of Fact.—The question of the existence of a bona fide dispute is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court from all the circumstances of the transaction.

Id.—Determination of Question—Immaterial Circumstances.—In the determination of that question the mere fact that it might have been held, in an action involving the construction of the original contract, that the plaintiff’s assignor could not have been compelled to relinquish any portion of its original claim, was of no consequence in the face of the established fact that it did actually and knowingly accept a lesser amount in full satisfaction and settlement of its claim.

Id.—Conclusiveness of Settlement—Determination of Which Party was in the Bight.—Where the parties to an executed agreement of accord and satisfaction have met upon equal terms, and without fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake have adjusted existing differences concerning their relative rights and obligations arising out of a valid pre-existing agreement, it is neither necessary nor permissible to go behind a settlement actually made for the purpose of ascertaining which of the parties was right in the controversy which preceded and constituted the basis of such settlement.

Id.—Good Faith of Dispute—Findings and Judgment.—Where the good faith of the dispute, which is expressly found to be the basis of an executed agreement of accord and satisfaction, follows as an irresistible inference from all the facts and circumstances of the ease and the acts of the parties which are found by the trial court to have attended the execution of the agreement, the findings are not open to attack as not sustaining a judgment for the defendant on the plea of accord and satisfaction, although they do not specifically and affirmatively determine that the dispute which preceded the payment of the claim in controversy was genuine and made in good faith.

Id.—Compromise by Agent—Ratification by Principal.—Where a principal accepts and retains money paid to his agent, with full knowledge that such payment was made, accepted, and receipted for upon the express condition that it was in full settlement of a disputed claim, the principal thereby ratifies the compromise and is estopped to deny the agent’s authority to make it.

Id.—Part Performance—Whether Extinguishes Obligation.—Section 1524 of Civil Code.—Section 1524 of the Civil Code providing that “part performance of an obligation, either 'before or after breach thereof, when expressly accepted by the creditor in writing, in satisfaction, or rendered in pursuance of an agreement in writing for that purpose, though without any new consideration, extinguishes the obligation,” has reference only to agreements of release and satisfaction made in cases where the obligation is neither doubtful nor disputed, and has no application to an executed agreement of accord and satisfaction founded upon the settlement and extinction of a disputed debt.

Id.—Accord Without Satisfaction—Whether Bars Debt.—An accord without satisfaction will not operate to bar an action upon a. disputed debt.

Id.—Parol Evidence—Whether Admissible to Prove Performance. Parol evidence, even though it involves the subject matter of an executory contract which in itself would be within the statute of frauds, may be resorted to for the purpose of proving performance in satisfaction of the accord.

Id.—Executed Agreement—Effect to Extinguish Original Obligation.—Where an agreement to accept in full payment a sum less than the amount in dispute has been shown to have been fully executed by the payment and acceptance of the lesser sum, the original obligation is thereby extinguished.

Id.—Pleading—Necessity of Specially Pleading Accord and Satisfaction.—The settled rule of pleading in this state requires an agreement of accord and satisfaction to 'be specially pleaded before it can be availed of as a defense.

Id.—Exception to Rule That Accord and Satisfaction is to be Specially Pleaded.—This rule is subject to the exception that if a plaintiff, as a part of his case, proves a payment, and the circumstances under which it was made tend to show an accord and satisfaction, the defendant may rely upon the facts thus shown as constituting an accord and satisfaction though not pleaded as such in the answer.

Id.—Amendment of Answer.—It is not an abuse of discretion to allow the defendant to amend Ms answer, at the close of the evidenee, by specially pleading the existence of an executed agreement of accord and satisfaction, where the evidence tends to show the existence of such an agreement.

Id.—Pleading and Facts Constituting Accord and Satisfaction.— The defense of accord and satisfaction, at the very best, requires nothing more to be pleaded than the payment and acceptance, upon a mutual agreement express or implied, of a certain sum of money or other thing of value in full settlement and satisfaction of a pre-existing and previously disputed obligation.