Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 155 (2026)

No action on demands discharged by partial payment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No action shall be maintained on a demand settled by a creditor or his attorney entrusted to collect it, in full discharge thereof, by the receipt of money or other valuable consideration, however small.  
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2021 · leading case: Emerson v. Sweet, 432 A.2d 784 (Me. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Emerson v. Sweet, 432 A.2d 784 (Me. 1981). “Maine cases often discuss accord and satisfaction by reference to 14 M.R.S.A. § 155 (1980), a statutory modification of the common law.”
Maine Mut. Fire Ins. v. Watson, 532 A.2d 686 (Me. 1987). “1984); 14 M.R.S.A. § 155 (1980); Couch on Insurance § 59.”
Bryson v. Kenney, 430 A.2d 1102 (Me. 1981). “Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Graffam v. Geronda, 304 A.2d 76 (Me. 1973). “14 M.R.S.A. § 155 provides: “No action shall he maintained on a demand settled by a creditor or his attorney entrusted to collect it, in full discharge thereof, by the receipt of money or other valuable consideration, however small.”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Warren (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “That motion to dismiss will be DENIED. See 14 M.”
Leonard v. Gray, 686 A.2d 1079 (Me. 1996). “The doctrine of accord and satisfaction is codified at 14 M.R.S.A. § 155 (1980), which provides: “No action shall be maintained on a demand settled by a creditor or his attorney entrusted to collect it, in full discharge thereof, by the receipt of money or other valuable…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 155(4) — 1 case
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Warren (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “That motion to dismiss will be DENIED. See 14 M.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.