PARKS CAMPBELL FINDLEY MOTOR CO. v. WOLVERTON

PARKS CAMPBELL FINDLEY MOTOR CO. v. WOLVERTON
1924 OK 1041
230 P. 863
107 Okla. 128
Case Number: 14640
Decided: 11/18/1924
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PARKS, CAMPBELL, FINDLEY MOTOR CO.
v.
WOLVERTON.

Syllabus

¶0 Bills and Notes--Purchase of Check After Dishonor--Defense. A check, after dishonor, in the hands of a purchaser is subject to any defense that might have been made against the payee.

Barefoot & Carmichael, for plaintiff in error.
Bailey & Hammerly, for defendant in error.

WARREN, J.

 
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Grady county, Okla., by the plaintiff in error, Parks, Campbell, Findley Motor Company, which recovered a judgment based upon two certain verdicts, one against the defendant in error, John P. Wolverton, in the sum of $ 501.35, and one which the said Wolverton in the same action recovered against the company on a counterclaim in the sum of $ 480. It appears that the said Wolverton had purchased an automobile which was unsatisfactory, from the Hargrove Parks Motor Company. Later a settlement was had of the controversy whereby Wolverton took another car and gave his check for the agreed difference of $ 500. Payment was refused on this check and it was duly protested for nonpayment and the protest fees on the accompanying protest in the sum of $ 1.35 were added to the claim. The Hargrove Parks Motor Company sold out to, or was reorganized into the Parks, Campbell, Findley Motor Company, which latter company acquired this claim with the other assets of the company. Suit was brought for the amount of this check and the protest fees by the second company against Wolverton. He filed a cross-petition in the nature of a counterclaim in which he alleged that the second car purchased was not as represented in that it was guaranteed to be in first-class mechanical condition, while in fact it was not in ordinary good mechanical condition, specifying certain defects alleged to exist in the car. He prayed judgment on his counterclaim in the sum of $ 600. Plaintiff, by way of reply, set up the settlement as to the first car, alleged the examination and acceptance of the second car, and pleaded an estoppel on the part of the defendant to deny liability on the check.