\
POPE v. roman. 7
executory,—that the plaintiff would thereafter receive> the ’note of his
brother in lieu of the note in suit. Meantime, and until the accord was
performed and accepted, the $1,000 note was not discharged. It was
not apparently agreed that the $7 ,500 note was canceled, but it was to
be taken by the plaintiff, and to become his property. The agreement
was not to accept the agreement itself rather than the performance of it,
as a satisfaction of the $1,000 note, neither was it an agreement that the
respective notes were immediately transferred from one owner to the ·
other. It was an accord, which is "an agreement, in the case of con-
tracts, where the creditor agrees to accept some other thing in lieu of
that which is contracted or promised to be done." 1 Swift’s Dig. 499.
The authorities upon the subject of accord without satisfaction are nu-
merous and well known, and are uniform that the answer or defense is
no bar to the suit. Goodrich v. Stanley, 24 Conn. 613; Kronwr v. Heim,
75 N. Y. 574. r - . » .
Let judgment be entered for the plaintiff, as of October 19., 1887, for
$1,396, and costs. ~  
Porn and another ·v. Ponrnn. ‘
(Uirouit Court, S. D. Iowa, 0. D. December 12, 1887.). 1
1. CONTRACTS-—·T0· Pu ANOTHER? Das·r—AorroN nr Bnnmrroram. H
C. bound himself personally by a note and mortgage on pprsonal property,
but inexecuting the same designated himself as " gent. " e afterwar s so d
the mortgaged property to the defendant, who, agreeing to pay the mortgage
debt as a part of the purchase price, sold the property, but refused topay the
plaintiffs, who were the mortgagees, the amount of the mortgage debt. Held;
even though C.’s wife was the real owner of the business, . having bound
himself personally, plaintiffs could maintain an action at law against defend-
ant on his contract with C. to pay the mortgage.
2. Sem:. V .
Defendant bought personal property subject to a mortgage, which he agreed
to pay as a part of the purchase price. Plaintiffs, who were the mortgagees,
brought an action to recover on defendants agreement with the mortgagor to
pay the mortgage debt. Held, that defendant was estopped from setting up
as a defense an informalitv in the execution of the mortgage. ?
At Law. ·
The plaintiffs, Pope & Davis, were the mortgagees of 5,000 bushels
of corn. The mortgagor sold the same to the defendant, J ames‘Porter,
who agreed to pay the mortgage debt as a part of the purchase price.
Defendant sold the corn, and, refusing to pay plaintiffs the amount of
the mortgage, they brought this action to recover under the agreement
between the defendant and the mortgagees. Defendant demurred.
Ouxntmins dd Wright, for plaintiffs. » .
_ l E. J Goode, for defendant.
Smnas, J. On the twenty-fourth day of February, 1881, one D. A.
Cheney, a resident of Polk county, Iowa, executed a chattel mortgageon .