#### Illinois Smelting & Refining Company, Defendant in Error, v. Harold E. Horton and George H. Horton, trading as Chicago Aluminum Castings Company, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 20,472.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Perry L. Persons, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.

Reversed and judgment here.

Opinion filed January 17, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the Illinois Smelting & Refining Company, plaintiff, against Harold E. Horton and George H. Horton, trading as Chicago Aluminum Castings Company, defendants, for a balance claimed to be due for aluminum sold defendants. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.

Harvey Strickler, for plaintiffs in error.

Louis S. Gibson, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice MoSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

*452Abstract of the Decision.

1: Accord and satisfaction, § 4*—what constitutes where claim, disputed. Where there is a dispute as to the weight of metal sold and the parties agree that the seller shall weigh up the metal and that the purchaser shall make payment at once on the basis of the weight thus ascertained, and, after the metal is correctly weighed, a bill is presented in which a shortage of weight is deducted, and a.check given in payment therefor is accepted, there is an accord and satisfaction so as to preclude a recovery for an alleged balance.

2. Payment, § 29*—when evidence sufficient to establish payment of disputed claim. In an action to recover an alleged balance for metal sold where it appeared that there was a dispute as to the weight, and there was undisputed evidence that the plaintiff carefully weighed and checked the metal, pursuant to an agreement of the parties, held that the evidence was sufficient to establish payment for all metal that had been delivered.