SALLISAW BANK & TRUST CO. v. RHODES

SALLISAW BANK & TRUST CO. v. RHODES
1924 OK 934
229 P. 816
103 Okla. 256
Case Number: 13795
Decided: 10/14/1924
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

SALLISAW BANK & TRUST CO. et al.
v.
RHODES, Adm'r.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Questions of Fact--Conclusiveness of Verdict.
Where a case is submitted to a jury under proper instruction from the court, the jury being the finders of the facts, their verdict will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support it.
2. Same--Judgment Sustained.
In this case, record examined, and held, that the case was fairly submitted to the jury and that the findings of fact made by the jury are amply supported by the evidence and the case should be affirmed.

W. L. Curtis, for plaintiff in error.
T. M. McCombs, for defendant in error

MAXEY, C.

¶1 This suit was begun in the district court of Sequoyah county on the 24th day of August, 1914. The amended petition on which the case was tried is a suit on two promissory notes, one dated the 19th day of April, 1913, due November 20, 1913, and the other note dated January 27, 1913, for $ 335.50, to mature on November 20, 1913. Both of said notes bore interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from maturity until paid. These notes were made to the Farmers' National Bank of Sallisaw. Okla., and thereafter assigned before maturity to the Sallisaw Bank & Trust Company and R. W. Hines, and both were signed by the defendant, John F. Priest. Soon after the commencement of this suit, R. W. Hines died and L. C. Moore was appointed administrator of his estate, and prior to the filing of the second amended petition, said administrator made final settlement and was discharged, and the children of R. W. Hines were made parties plaintiff as heirs at law of R. W. Hines. The amount claimed on said notes was $ 626, on the first note, and a balance of $ 159.92 on the second note, and interest and attorneys' fees. The defendant in his answer admits the execution of the two notes sued on, but alleges that the note of January 27, 1913, has been paid in full, and alleges that the plaintiffs had failed to give him credits that he was entitled to. and if he had the proper credits he would owe nothing on either of said notes, but on the contrary the plaintiffs would be indebted to him. Defendant then sets up that he made certain payments on said notes and directed said payments to be applied on the two notes sued on, and that he also put up certain collateral notes with the plaintiffs at the time said notes were executed, and alleges that said collateral notes were all good collectible notes, and alleges that if the plaintiffs had used ordinary diligence they could have collected all of said notes, and that he was entitled to credit for same. He also set out certain payments that he made at different times, giving the date and the amount of such payments, but said each payment made was to be credited on the two notes sued on. After the trial of this case and before the appeal was perfected, the defendant John F. Priest died, and C. B. Rhodes was appointed administrator of his estate, and now appears as defendant in error. The case was tried to the court and a jury and the defendant having admitted the execution of the notes and pleaded payment, took the burden and introduced his testimony first. There was a great deal of quibbling over the introduction of the testimony, but Mr. Priest, the defendant, testified in detail as to the various transactions and to the payments, and it seems that most of his dealings were with Mr. Hines, and we think a good deal of confusion in the testimony came from the fact that Mr. Hines, with whom the transaction was principally had, had died. Each party was given full latitude by the court in getting their testimony before the jury, and there is but little complaint as to the testimony. The testimony presents the question clean cut as to whether Priest had paid the notes sued on. According to Priest's testimony he had overpaid the notes if the plaintiffs should be charged with the collateral notes placed in their hands. The evidence shows that some of these notes were paid, but it is not clear as to whether they all were paid. The defendant filed a cross-petition asking for judgment against the plaintiffs for $ 785 on account of payments made, and for an item of $ 450 collected on the collateral notes, making in all the sum of $ 1,235, offset claimed by the defendant.