158 S.E. 782 (W.Va. 1931), 6918, Tabler v. Hoult

Docket Nº:6918.
Citation:158 S.E. 782, 110 W.Va. 542
Opinion Judge:LITZ, P.
Party Name:TABLER v. HOULT.
Attorney:Ward Lanham and H. H. Rose, both of Fairmont, for plaintiff in error.
Case Date:May 26, 1931
Court:Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 782

158 S.E. 782 (W.Va. 1931)

110 W.Va. 542

TABLER

v.

HOULT.

No. 6918.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

May 26, 1931

Submitted May 20, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

"Valuable consideration" may consist in some right, interest, profit, or benefit, or in some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken.

A valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.

Parol evidence of agreement that maker should not be required to pay note is inadmissible under parol evidence rule.

Parol evidence to prove an agreement between the maker and the payee of a note that the former should not be required to pay it is inadmissible under the rule inhibiting the introduction of parol evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or detract from the terms of a written instrument.

Error to Circuit Court, Marion County.

Action by W. R. Tabler, as receiver of the Monongahela Bank of Fairmont, against Golden M. Hoult. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Ward Lanham and H. H. Rose, both of Fairmont, for plaintiff in error.

LITZ, P.

This is an action by W. R. Tabler, as receiver of the Monongahela Bank of Fairmont, against Golden M. Hoult, on a note for $20,000, dated July 20, 1928, signed by Hoult as maker, and payable to the order of the bank six months after date. To the judgment of the circuit court entered upon a verdict in favor of defendant, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.

The defendant pleaded the general issue and also filed a special plea substantially averring that the note sued on had been given in continuance of a similar note executed by him January 20, 1926, to cover an indebtedness of Hugh F. Smith to the bank, and that he (Hoult), without consideration to himself, was induced by said Smith and Clarence D. [110 W.Va. 543] Robinson to execute the said original note solely for the accommodation of Smith and the benefit of the bank.

To secure the obligation assumed by Hoult, the bank retained certain shares of corporate stock belonging to Smith theretofore held by it as security for the Smith indebtedness. With the approval of Hoult, this...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP