Collier

On May 19, 1929, the Coos Bay Lumber Company, hereinafter referred to as the Lumber Company, entered into a written agreement with James Collier for certain logging operations in Oregon. On December 10, 1929, a supplemental agreement was entered into extending the contract to additional timber land not included in the original contract. On the same day another supplemental contract was entered into whereby it was agreed that the Lumber Company should reimburse the appellee “for the cost of said loading [of timber] including reasonable charges for use of equipment”. The operations under this contract continued until October 31, 1931, when the agreement was fully performed. The Lumber Company issued a check for $3,390.48. Attached thereto' was a receipt which was signed by the appel-lee and the amount of the check cashed. The receipt read as follows: “The attached check is accepted in full settlement of all contracts and claims of whatsoever na *723 ture with this Company up to and including this date — November 10, 1931.”

No further dealings occurred between the parties until the fall of 1934 when the appellee demanded payment for the loading operations under the supplemental…

(dissenting).

The facts concerning the law action are stated correctly,'so far as they go. It can be seen from the statement that the issue raised by the affirmative defenses and the reply in that action was whether an accord and satisfaction had been made. No issue of mistake in reaching the accord was made by these pleadings. There is nothing in the record to show that such issue of mistake arose in the evidence. The point actually decided is shown by the trial court’s opinion that by “accepting and cashing a check, the minds of the parties met, and the contract of accord and satisfaction was complete”. It is certain, therefore, that the only point decided in the action at law was that the alleged debt was extinguished by the accord and satisfaction.

The suit in equity was then commenced. It prayed that the judgment in the law action be set aside; that the contract of accord and satisfaction be reformed; and that appellee 'recover judgment. The bill accepted the fact that the judgment was made, but alleged that it was based on the accord and satisfaction arising from acceptance of the check and that such acceptance was made by mistake. Appellant, by answer denied the mistake,…