WOOD & CO. v. WOOD

WOOD & CO. v. WOOD
1934 OK 570
37 P.2d 256
169 Okla. 217
Case Number: 23224
Decided: 10/16/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

WOOD & CO. et al.
v.
WOOD, Ex'r.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Pleading--Bills and Notes--Judgment on Pleadings in Action on Note Held Proper Where Defendants Urge no Defense but Claim Payee Is Trustee for Others Who Are Asked to Be Made Parties.
Where plaintiff sued upon a note, asking for money judgment only, and the defendants admit the execution of the note and acknowledge the indebtedness, but claim that the plaintiff payee is in fact a trustee for others who furnished the money for the loan, and ask that such beneficiaries be made parties, such answer presents no defense and a motion for judgment upon the pleadings is properly sustained.
2. Same--Rights of Parties not Altered by Fact That Action Is Brought by Personal Representative of Deceased Payee Where Trusteeship Does not Appear on Face of Instrument Sued on.
The fact that the payee of the note is deceased and the suit is begun by his personal representative does not alter the situation where the trusteeship does not appear in the face of the obligation sued on; nor does the fact that defendants know that others might or could claim a part of the proceeds alter the right of the parties.
3. Parties--Plaintiff in Action in Law for Money Only not Compelled to Submit to Intervention of Parties on Ground They Are Entitled to Part of Money Sought Where Satisfaction of Judgment Would Release Defendants Who Claim no Equities or Defenses Against Such Parties.
Where plaintiff's action is in law for money only, he may choose his defendants and cannot be compelled to submit to intervention of parties on the ground that they are entitled to a part of the money so sought if in such action the satisfaction of the judgment would operate to release defendants, and the defendants may not require plaintiff to admit new parties defendant where the defendants sued claim no equities or defenses against such new parties.

Appeal from Superior Court. Pottawatomie County; Leroy G. Cooper, Judge.

Action by A. Wayne Wood, executor of the estate of C. Wood, deceased, against Wood & Company et al. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants approval. Affirmed.

Lydick & Brett and Arrington & Evans, for plaintiffs in error.
Goode, Dierker & Goode, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The note sued on in this case is made payable to the order of C. Wood and is for the principal sum of $ 16.000, and is signed by Wood & Company, by its president and vice president, and indorsed by W. P. Wood. Jr., Roy Wood, and W. P. Wood, the action being brought by A. Wayne Wood, as executor of the estate of C. Wood, deceased.

¶2 The amended answer of defendants admits the execution of the note: admits that C. Wood is deceased and that A. Wayne Brood is the duly appointed executor of his estate; admits the corporate capacity of Wood & Company; admits that they are indebted upon said note in the sum of $ 11,000, with interest thereon at eight per cent. per annum from July 1, 1929.

¶3 For their defense defendants say that said payee, C. Wood, was, in fact, a trustee; that Ada Wood and Eliza Wood, both now deceased, in fact each furnished one-third of the moneys for the loan; that said C. Wood has received from or through defendants an amount practically sufficient to reimburse him for his part of the money advanced, and that W. P. Wood, Jr., as the personal representative of the estates of Ada Wood and Eliza Wood, deceased, has, as such, an adverse interest in same, is entitled to practically all of the balance owing upon said note, and that the said defendants cannot safely proceed to trial, and they ask that the court order said W. P. Wood, Jr., as such representative, to be made a party, and that they be permitted to pay same to said representative.

¶4 On the same day that defendants filed their amended answer, the said W. P. Wood, Jr., as such representative, asked permission to intervene, setting out substantially the same facts.

¶5 On motion of plaintiff for judgment upon the pleadings, the court sustained the motion, rendered judgment for plaintiff below, and passed the petition for leave to intervene, to all of which exceptions were reserved and appeal had.

¶6 The assignments of error rest upon two propositions: The sustaining of the motion for judgment on the pleadings and rendition of judgment, and the failure and refusal of the court to rule upon the petition for leave to intervene.

¶7 Plaintiffs in error rest the first proposition upon the ground that upon the death of C. Wood, as payee of the note, his trusteeship terminated and his personal representative did not succeed thereto, citing: Russell v. Hartley (Conn.) 83 Conn. 654, 78 A. 320; Fidelity Trust Company v. Alexander, 243 F. 162; Snodgrass v. Snodgrass (Ala.) 185 Ala. 155, 64 So. 594; State v. Miss. Vall. Trust Co., 209 Mo. 472, 108 S.W. 97; In re Scott's Estate, 202 Pa. 389, 51 A. 1023; Burke v. Maguire, 154 Cal. 456, 98 P. 21; Reichert v. Mo. & Ill. Coal Co., 231 Ill. 238, 83 N.E. 166.

¶8 Upon the proposition that persons claiming right to the subject-matter of the action had a right to intervene, plaintiffs in error cite; Doyle v. Burns (Iowa) 123 Iowa 488, 99 N.W. 195; Davis v. Coburn, 128 Mass. 377; Birks v. McNeill (Iowa) 177 Iowa 567, 159 N.W. 210.

¶9 Plaintiffs in error do not claim that the payee of the note could not have maintained an action upon the note had he lived.

¶10 Section 1198, C. O. S. 1921 (1093, O. S. 1931) provides:

"Actions for the recovery of any property, real or personal, or for the possession thereof, and all actions founded upon contracts, may be maintained by and against executors and administrators in all cases and in the same courts in which the same might have been maintained by or against their respective testators and intestates."

¶11 We come to the question, then, as to whether the payee and holder of a note may maintain an action thereon though in truth and in fact he may be required to account for the proceeds thereof to third persons. This must be answered in the affirmative upon the authority of section 7721, C. O. S. 1921, (11350, O. S. 1931), and the following cases: Berry et al. v. Barton, 12 Okla. 221, 71 P. 1074, also reported in 66 L.R.A. 513 (see copious note therein): Chaffee v. Shartel, 46 Okla. 199, 148 P. 686; Stocker v. Dobyns-Lantz Hardware Co., 101 Okla. 133, 224 P. 302; Turner v. Crowder, 134 Okla. 215, 273 P. 349.

¶12 Bearing in mind that the defendants below claimed no defense to the note either as against the plaintiff or those who he asserts had a beneficial interest therein. and that they made no claim of set-off or counterclaim which would require others to be made parties in order to properly assert and determine, and that the plaintiff as executor was entitled to bring and maintain the action, it follows that the defendants were not entitled as a matter of right to have other parties brought into the action and require the plaintiff to litigate another and entirely different matter in such action.

¶13 The plaintiff in an action at law wherein nothing but a money judgment is asked may not be compelled to admit other parties to the action than those he has chosen. Goodrich v. Williamson et al., 10 Okla. 588, 63 P. 974.

¶14 It follows that the lower court committed no error in sustaining the motion for judgment upon the pleadings in the rendition of the judgment in favor of plaintiff, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.