STATE ex rel. SHULL v. HINKLE

STATE ex rel. SHULL v. HINKLE
1930 OK 208
287 P. 722
143 Okla. 33
Case Number: 19500
Decided: 04/29/1930
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

STATE ex rel. SHULL, Bank Com'r,
v.
HINKLE et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Right to Review--Motion for New Trial.
In order that an alleged error occurring at the trial of a cause may be reviewed by this court on appeal, a motion for a new trial based on this ground must be presented to the trial court and a ruling had thereon, and such alleged error must then be assigned as error by appellant in his petition in error.
2. Same--Reserving Error in Trial Court--Objection to Sufficiency of Evidence.
Where a party acquiesces in the submission of the issues to the jury without either demurring to the plaintiff's evidence, or asking an instructed verdict, or otherwise attacking the sufficiency of the evidence, he cannot in this court successfully claim the evidence does not support the verdict, even though assigned in motion for a new trial as grounds therefor.-- Newton v. Okmulgee Gro. Co., 88 Okla. 184, 212 P. 423.
3. Judgment--Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict.
In the absence of special findings, the court is unauthorized to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict unless the moving party is entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
4. Evidence--Bills and Notes--Parol Evidence to Contradict Written Instrument.
Where a creditor wrote his debtor a letter enclosing a note for execution, stating in the letter that the amount therein specified was a balance due on an old note after crediting the same with the proceeds arising from the sale of mortgaged property given to secure the same, and the debtor replied by a written notation on the back thereof admitting the indebtedness in the sum specified in the note and executed and returned the same, held, the debtor was not thereby precluded from offering evidence tending to show that the credit appearing on the old note was a cash payment made by him, and that the mortgaged property was sold subsequent to the execution and delivery of the renewal note, and that he received no credit for the proceeds thereof.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2.

Error from District Court, Cotton County; E. L. Richardson, Judge.

Action by the State ex rel. C. G. Shull, Bank Commissioner, against W. R. and Lena Hinkle. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Wm. T. Powell, for plaintiff in error.
Norman & Northcutt, for defendants in error.

HERR, C.

¶1 This is an action by the state on the relation of C. G. Shull, Bank Commissioner, against W. R. and Lena Hinkle, to recover on a promissory note. The note was executed by defendants on November 23, 1921, to the Chattanooga State Bank for the sum of $ 387.05, together with 10 per cent. interest and 10 per cent. attorney fees. The bank became insolvent on December 12, 1921, and was taken over by the Bank Commissioner.

¶2 The defense was payment. It is alleged that, prior to its insolvency, the bank had taken over certain chattels upon which it held a mortgage to secure the note in controversy, and sold the same for a sufficient amount to liquidate the note, but failed to give defendants credit therefor. The trial was to a jury resulting in a verdict and judgment thereon in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

¶3 When the case was called for trial, and after the jury was impaneled, plaintiff contended that the burden of proof, under the pleadings, was on defendants, and demanded that they be required to go forward with their proof. This was, by the court, denied. Plaintiff, in his brief, argues that this ruling constituted reversible error. He does not, however, assign this ruling as error in his petition in error, nor was it assigned as error by him in his motion for a new trial. The only grounds set forth in his motion for new trial are insufficiency of evidence and admission of incompetent evidence. This question is, therefore, not properly presented to this court for review.

¶4 Counsel also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The only manner in which this matter was raised in the trial court was by motion for a new trial. Counsel neither demurred to the evidence, nor moved for a directed verdict. In his petition in error, however, he assigns as error the overruling of his demurrer to the evidence and the overruling of his motion for a directed verdict. The record discloses no such proceedings, and notwithstanding the fact that defendants, in their brief, call attention to this matter, no suggestion is made that the record is incomplete. We must, therefore, assume that the record correctly reflects the proceedings. In this condition of the record, under repeated holdings of this court, we are precluded from considering this question.

¶5 Plaintiff next assigns as error the admission of certain evidence. It appears that the note in question is a renewal of a prior note executed by defendants in the sum of $ 663.40 and to secure which the bank took a chattel mortgage on certain live stock. It was the contention of the bank that the mortgaged property was sold prior to the execution of the renewal note and the proceeds thereof applied on the old note, thus reducing the amount to the sum for which the renewal note was given. On November 23, 1921, the bank wrote defendants a letter stating that the property covered by the mortgage was sold and credit therefor given on the old note, and after allowing such credit there remained a balance due of $ 387.05; enclosed a note for this sum and a mortgage securing the same for execution by defendants, which papers were executed and returned to plaintiff with a written notation on the back of the letter admitting indebtedness in the said amount to the bank.

¶6 At the trial, defendant W. R. Hinkle was permitted to testify, over the objection of plaintiff, that the credit appearing on the original note was cash paid by him, and that the mortgaged property was sold subsequent to the execution and delivery of the note in question, and that he received no credit for the proceeds thereof. The ground of the objection was that this evidence tended to vary and contradict the terms of a written instrument. It is argued that the letter and the notation written on the back thereof amounted to a written agreement that defendants were at said time indebted to the bank in said sum, and that such agreement could not be varied or contradicted by parol evidence. We fail to see the force of this objection. Defendants, as before stated, contended that the credit on the old note consisted of a cash payment made by them; that the mortgaged property was sold after execution and delivery of the note in question. In our opinion, they had a clear right to make this proof, notwithstanding the letter written by the bank indicating that such property had been sold prior to the execution of the new note and credit given for the proceeds. This evidence was clearly competent and properly admitted. Its weight was a question for the jury. The jury having found for defendants, and the sufficiency of the evidence upon which to submit the case to the jury not having been properly challenged in the trial court, we cannot here review the same.

¶7 Plaintiff finally assigns as error the overruling of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This assignment is not well taken. The answer stated a complete defense to plaintiff's cause of action. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, in the absence of special findings, is only permissible, under our practice, where the moving party is entitled to judgment on the pleadings. Dill v. Johnston, 94 Okla. 264, 222 P. 507; and McAlester v. Bank of McAlester, 95 Okla. 193, 218 P. 839. Judgment should be affirmed.