Citizens Bank of McCook v. Warfield

• Decision Date: 09 November 1909
• Docket Number: 15,795
• Citation: 123 N.W. 315,85 Neb. 328
• Parties: CITIZENS BANK OF MCCOOK, APPELLEE, v. J. H. WARFIELD ET AL., APPELLANTS
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

123 N.W. 315

85 Neb. 328

CITIZENS BANK OF MCCOOK, APPELLEE, v. J. H. WARFIELD ET AL., APPELLANTS

No. 15,795

Supreme Court of Nebraska

November 9, 1909

APPEAL from the district court for Red Willow county: ROBERT C. ORR JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

S. R Smith, for appellants.

Morlan Ritchie & Wolff, contra.

OPINION

LETTON, J.

This action was brought by the Citizens Bank of McCook against J. H. Warfield and A. D. Warfield to recover a balance due upon their promissory note for $ 220. The defense was a denial of the execution and delivery of the note. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and defendants have appealed.

Defendants insist that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, which they contend decidedly preponderates in their favor. A reading of the record does not produce this impression upon the mind of the court. The evidence is conflicting, but, if the case were submitted to us for decision upon the facts, we would be compelled to agree with the jury and to find that the note was executed and delivered by them.

Defendants further complain of errors in the exclusion by the court of certain testimony sought to be drawn out upon the cross-examination of Mr. Franklin, the president of the bank, who had testified that he was present at the time the note was signed and that he saw each defendant sign it. These questions had reference to the manner in which the amount of the note was arrived at, whether there were other notes against Mr. Warfield in the bank at that time, and the time when the note of which this is a renewal was purchased from the original owner. The direct examination of the witness had been confined to proof of the only fact denied by the answer, which was the execution and delivery of the note. None of the points covered by the excluded questions were relevant to the direct examination of Mr. Franklin, and they were not proper cross-examination. The consideration for the note was not material under the issues, and, hence, this evidence was neither relevant to the issue nor proper cross-examination. Dillon v. Darst, 48 Neb. 803, 67 N.W. 783. Further than this, the witness was allowed to testify on cross-examination that the note was given to take up a prior note that the defendants had signed and given to one Penny, and that it was a renewal of that note and others.

Defendants also complain of the admission in evidence of their...