First Nat. Bank of Gallipolis v. Marietta Mfg. Co., 12571
| Decision Date | 29 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 12571,12571 |
| Citation | 153 S.E.2d 172,151 W.Va. 636 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GALLIPOLIS v. MARIETTA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Corporation. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where one makes an unequivocal statement in writing that he will pay another a certain sum of money and the latter, in reliance upon such statement, performs to his detriment, as expected from the circumstances surrounding the parties, a contractual relationship is consummated, consisting of an offer and an acceptance, supported by sufficient consideration.
2. A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, affidavits or other evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Steptoe & Johnson, Charles W. Yeager, Charleston, for appellant.
Kay, Casto & Chaney, Robert H. C. Kay, John T. Kay, Jr., Ralph C. Dusic, Jr., Charleston, for appellee.
The plaintiff, First National Bank of Gallipolis, instituted a civil action in the Circuit Court of Mason County against the defendant, Marietta Manufacturing Company, a corporation, seeking to recover the sum of $8,676.41. The Circuit Court granted the defendant's motion to strike the evidence of the plaintiff and entered an order directing a verdict for the defendant. It is from the judgment entered on that order that this appeal is now prosecuted. The plaintiff will be referred to as the Bank and the defendant as Marietta.
The following factual situation, as revealed by the record, gave rise to this civil action. On December 4, 1961, J. L. McCorry, Jr. approached Mr. Joe Moch, the president of the First National Bank of Gallipolis, for the purpose of obtaining a loan from the Bank. During the course of their discussion, Mr. McCorry informed Mr. Moch that Marietta Manufacturing Company was indebted to him in the sum of $20,896.38, and that he would pledge the unpaid invoices in that amount as collateral for the $20,000.00 loan he was seeking. Mr. Moch replied that the invoices were not satisfactory as collateral, but said that the desired loan would be made if Mr. McCorry would obtain and present to him a letter from Marietta stating that it would make payments jointly to Mr. McCorry and the Bank. The next day the loan was made by the Bank upon presentation by Mr. McCorry of the following letter:
'DECEMBER 5, 1961
MR. J. MOCK, PRESIDENT
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GALLIPOLIS
GALLIPOLIS, OHIO
Dear Mr. Mock:
Per our records as of November 30, 1961, we have unpaid invoices totaling $20,896.38 payable to J. L. McCorry, Jr. for billing of sand and equipment rental. Per wishes of Mrs. McCorry today checks for payment of these shall be made payable to First National Bank of Gallipolis and J. L. McCorry, Jr.
No payments were made on this loan until May 18, 1962 when Marietta, in accordance with the commitment in its letter of December 5, 1961, issued its check in the sum of $12,219.97, payable to 'First National Bank of Gallipolis and J. L. McCorry, Jr.' Except for $600.00, which was credited to interest on the subject loan, the amount of this check was applied to the principal indebtedness owed by Mr. McCorry to the Bank.
On June 22, 1962, Marietta, without making any inquiry of the Bank and without advising it of its intention to do so, issued its check in the sum of $10,362.69, payable to J. L. McCorry, Jr. and delivered it to the said payee. When the Bank subsequently requested additional payment on the McCorry loan from Marietta it was advised that all sums due Mr. McCorry by Marietta had been paid and that it, therefore, would make no further payment to the Bank. Mr. McCorry, now residing in the State of Florida, refuses to pay the Bank the balance due and owing on his loan. Consequently, the Bank, relying on Marietta's commitment in its letter of December 5, 1961, instituted this action to recover the balance due on said loan.
In its answer Marietta substantially admits the factual averments contained in the Bank's amended complaint, but denies that the subject letter created any legally binding undertaking. Interrogatories were propounded by Marietta to the Bank and were answered. After affidavits of Mr. Moch and Mr. McCorry were filed on behalf of the Bank and counter affidavits of Mr. Leighty were filed on behalf of Marietta, the plaintiff and defendant each filed a motion for summary judgment. By order dated May 4, 1964, each of these motions was denied.
The case was set for jury trial on June 22, 1965, at which time the Bank presented the evidence of Joe Moch, its president, and Marlin G. Kearns, its cashier, after which it rested. Thereafter, on the motion of the defendant, the plaintiff's evidence was stricken and, as aforesaid, the court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff's motion to set aside the judgment and to enter judgment for it having been overruled, this appeal was prosecuted.
The Bank assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to grant its motion for summary judgment and requests that such judgment now be entered. In the alternative, it contends that the court erred in striking its evidence and directing a verdict for the defendant, and that the case, at least should have gone to the jury. It is the position of the appellant that every material fact alleged was established without contradiction.
Marietta on the other hand, contends that the trial court correctly denied summary judgment to the plaintiff for the reason that certain denials made by it constituted a conflict in the evidence. Furthermore, says the defendant, the Bank failed to prove a cause of action against it.
In the amended complaint, we find the letter of December 5, 1961, wherein Marietta acknowledged that it was indebted to Mr. McCorry in the sum of $20,896.38. It therein unequivocally committed itself to pay the Bank the amount of such indebtedness. Proof of the existence of this letter and that the Bank made the subject loan to Mr. McCorry solely in reliance thereon was established by the testimony of Joe Moch and Marlin G. Kearns, the president and cashier of the Bank. This testimony remains undisputed.
Marietta admits that it wrote the letter of December 5, 1961, addressed to the Bank, but says that it did not know that such letter was to accommodate Mr. McCorry in obtaining a loan from the Bank. The defendant admits that it made a payment thereafter to the Bank and Mr. McCorry as it said in the letter it would do. It alleged, however, that it paid the $10,362.69 to Mr. McCorry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Heck's Inc.
...offeree which constitutes a performance of that requested by the offeror is well established." First National Bank v. Marietta Manufacturing Co., 151 W.Va. 636, 641-42, 153 S.E.2d 172, 176 (1967). Consideration is also an essential element of a contract. First National Bank v. Marietta Manu......
-
Adkins v. Inco Alloys Intern., Inc.
...offeree which constitutes a performance of that requested by the offeror is well established.' First National Bank v. Marietta Manufacturing Co., 151 W.Va. 636, 641-42, 153 S.E.2d 172, 176 (1967)."Consideration is also an essential element of a contract....Consideration has been defined as ......
-
Freeman v. Poling
... ... discrimination as to violate appellants' First Amendment rights to free expression of political ... E.g., North American Royal Coal Co. v. Mountaineer Developers, Inc., 161 W.Va. 37, ... Page 420 ... Bank of Gallipolis v. Marietta Mfg. Co., 151 W.Va ... ...
-
Brown v. Genesis HealthCare Corp.
...contract consists of an offer and an acceptance, supported by sufficient consideration. See Syllabus Point 1, First Nat. Bank of Gallipolis v. Marietta Mfg. Co., 151 W.Va. 636, 153 S.E.2d 172 (1967); Syllabus Point 5, Virginian Export Coal Co. v. Rowland Land Co., 100 W.Va. 559, 131 S.E. 25......