Prom an early period the English law regarded the formal contract as of an entirely different class and rank from the simple contract.1 This distinction was regarded as essential and vital, and it was said that it was in accordance with natural justice that an obligation could be dissolved only by the same form as that by which it was entered into. As a result of a rigid and uncompromising application of this maxim, we have the same problems in accord and satisfaction of formal contracts that we have in the case of modification by a new contract,2 and in payment.3

12 Minnesota. Clark v. Abbott. 53 Minn. 88. 39 Am. St. Rep. 577, 56 N. W. 542.

New Jersey. Jackson v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 66 N. J. L. 319, 56 L. R. A. 87, 49 Atl. 730.

Ohio. Leavitt v. Morrow, 6 Ohio St. 71. 67 Am. Dec. 334.

South Carolina. Ex parte Zeigler, 83 S. Car. 78, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1005, 64 S. E. 613, 916.

West Virginia. Crumlish v. Central Improvement Co., 38 W. Va. 390. 45 Am. St. Rep. 872. 23 L. R. A. 120, 18 S. E. 456.

Wisconsin. Gray v. Herman, 75 Wis. 453. 6 L. R. A. 691, 44 N. W. 248.

1See Sec. 341 et seq.

2 Savage v. Edgar, 86 N. J. Eq. 205, 3 i L R. 1021, 98 Atl. 407; Conrad v. Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

- Tenn. - , 206 S. W. 34.

It may be avoided for mistake by the creditor as to the amount paid in. of which mistake the debtor seeks to take advantage. Ledwidge v. Arkansas National Bank, 135 Ark. 420, 205 S. W. 806.

3 Allison v. Abendroth, 108 N. Y. 470, 15 N. E. 606.

4 Conrad v. Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co., - Tenn. - , 206 S. W. 34.

5 See ch. LXXVII.

6St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co. v. Winslow,

- Ark. - , 210 S. W. 782.

7 St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co. v. Winslow,

- Ark. - , 210 S. W. 782.

1 See Sec. 35 and 1131 et seq.

Since payment was not a defense as against a judgment,4 accord and satisfaction was no better defense at law.5 Equity, however, would enjoin a judgment creditor from making an unconscientious use of his legal right in collecting judgment after payment thereof; and it was finally provided by statute that payment could be pleaded as a defense to an action upon a record.6 As a result of these views of equity, and of this English statute, it is now generally held that an accord and satisfaction is a good defense to a liability which is based upon a record.7