ACCOUNT STATED. An agreed balance of accounts. An account which has been ex amined and accepted by the parties. 2 Atk. 251.
An account cannot become an account stated with reference to a debt payable on a contingency ; Tuggle v. Minor, 76 Cal. 96, 18 Pac. 131. Although an item of an ac count may he disputed, it may become an account stated as to the items admittedly correct ; Mulford v. Caesar, 53 Mo. App. 263.
In Equity. Acceptance may be inferred from circumstances, as where an account is rendered to a merchant and no objection is made, after sufficient time; 1 Sim. & S. 333 ; Murry v. "Poland, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 569; Freeland v. Heron, 7 Cra. 147, 3 L. Ed. 297; Pratt v. Weyman, 1' McCord Ch. (S. C.) 156 ; Wood v. Gault, 2 Md. Ch. Dec. 433; Dows v. Durfee, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 213. Such an ac count is deemed conclusive between the par ties ; 2 Bro. C. C. 62, 310; Desha v. Smith, 20 Ala. 747; Consemla v. Fanning, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y,) 587; Stiles v. Brown, 1 Gill. (Md.) 350; Farmer v. Barnes, 56 N. C. 109; to the extent agreed upon; Troup v. Haight, 1 Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 239 ; unless some fraud, mistake, or plain error is shown; Barrow v. Rhinelander, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 550; Pratt v. Weymaia, 1 McCord Ch. (S. C.) 156; and in .such case, generally, the account will not be opened, but liberty to surcharge or falsi fy will be given ; 9 Ves. 265; 1 Sch. & L. 192; Hutchins v. Hope, 7 Gill (Md.) 119. A con sideration and legal liability for each item, aside from the stated account, is not essen tial to sustain an action for the balance; Patillo v. Co., 131 Fed. 680, 65 C. C. A. 508. " At Law. An account Stated is conclusive as to the liability of• the parties, with refer ence to the transactions included in it; Mur v.. Poland, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 569 ; ex cept in cases of fraud or manifest error ; 1 Esp. 159; Goodwin v. Insurance Co., 24 Conn. 591; Martin v. Beckwith, 4 Wis. 219; White v. Walker, 5 Fla. 478. See Ogden i.` Astor, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 311 ; Neff v. Wooding, 83 Va. 432, 2 S. E. 731.
Acceptance by the party- to be charged must be 'shown ; Hussey v. Gant's Adm'r, 10 Humphr. (Tenn.) 238 ; Lee v. Abrams, 12 Ill. 111. The acknowledgment that the sum is due is sufficient; 2 Term 480 ; though there be but a single item in the account ; 13 East 249; 5 M. & S. 65.
The acceptance need not be in express terms ; Powell v. R. R., 65 Mo. 658 ; Volken ing v. De Graaf, 81 N. Y. 268. Acceptance may be inferred from retaining the account a sufficient time without making objection; Freeland v. Heron, 7 Cra. (11. S.) 147, 3 L. Ed. 297; Jones v. Dunn, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 109; Dows v. Durfee, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 213; Ogden v. Astor, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 311; Patti lo v. Commission Co., 131 Fed. 680, 65 C. C. A. 508; and from other circumstances; Ber ry v. Pierson, 1 Gill (Md.) 234.
If the parties' had already come to a dis agreement when the account is rendered, as sent cannot be inferred from silence; Ed wards v. Hoeffinghoff, 38 Fed. 635.
A definite ascertained sum must be stated to be due; Andrews v. Allen, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 241.
It must be made by' a competent person, excluding infants and those who are of un sound mind; 1 Term 40.
Husband and may join and state an account with a third person; 2 Term 483; 16 Eng. L. & Eq. 290.
An agent may bind his principal; Murray v. Toland, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y:) 569; but he must show his authority ; Thallhimer v. Brinckerhoft, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 394, 21 Am. Dec. 155; Harvey v. Ry. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.). 392. Partners may state accounts; and an action lies for the party entitled to the bal ance; Ozeas v. Johnson, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 434, 1 L. Ed. 897 ; Lamalere v. Caze, 1 Wash. C. C. 435, Fed. Cas. No. 8,003; Kidder v. Rixford, 16 Vt. 169, 42 Am. Dec. 504.
The acceptance of the account is an ac knowledgment of a debt due for the balance, and will support assumpsit. It is not, there fore, necessary to prove the items, but only to prove an existing debt or demand, and the stating of the account; Ware v. Dudley, 1.6 Ala. 742; Auzerais v. Naglee, 74 Cal. 60, 15 Pac. 371.' Facts known to a party when he settles an account stated cannot be used later to impeach it; Marmon v. Waller, 53 Mo. App. 610; and it should not be set aside except for clear showing of fraud or mistake; Greenhow v. Edler, 51 Fed. 117; Marmon v. Waller, 53 Mo. App. 610. • On an account stated and a balance due, a promise is implied to pay this balance on demand; a subsequent promise differing therefrom is nudum pactum. Odger, C. L. 683.