Hanna v. Parrish
| Decision Date | 05 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 37702,37702 |
| Citation | 1957 OK 277,317 P.2d 745 |
| Parties | Roy E. HANNA, Plaintiff in Error, v. G. Y. PARRISH and Guy E. Clark, Copartners, DBA Parrish & Clark, Defendants in Errror. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In passing upon a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court must consider as true all the evidence favorable to party against whom the motion is directed, together with all inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom, and disregard all conflicting evidence favorable to the movant.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County; Lloyd H. McGuire, Judge.
Action on note and mortgage resulting in instructed verdict and judgment for Plaintiff, and Defendant appeals. Reversed.
A. A. Berringer, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Smith & Townsend, Tulsa, for defendants in error.
This is an action on a note and chattel mortgage brought by D. Y. Parrish and Guy E. Clark, co-partners, doing business as Parrish & Clark, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, against Roy E. Hanna, hereinafter referred to as defendant. The cause was tried to a jury, and after both parties had rested, plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict and the court sustained such motion and directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount sued for. Defendant has appealed from the judgment entered on such verdict, and as his sole proposition of error asserts that the trial court erred in sustaining plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict and in directing the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' petition alleged the execution and delivery, for a valuable consideration, of the promissory note sued on, a copy of which was attached to the petition, alleged that defendant had made the first payment due on said note but had failed and refused to pay the installments thereafter becoming due thereon, and sought judgment for the alleged balance due thereon of $408.10, together with interest and attorney's fee. Such petition also alleged a second cause of action for possession of a certain automobile by virtue of a certain chattel mortgage allegedly given as security for the promissory note sued on. Said second cause of action has, however, apparently been abandoned by plaintiffs.
Defendant answered admitting the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage sued on, but alleging that the same had been paid and satisfied in full and that the original note had been stamped 'paid' and returned to him by plaintiffs and that the mortgage had been released of record in the office of the Tulsa County Clerk and the original mortgage, stamped 'released', returned to defendant. Plaintiffs' reply to such answer consisted of a general denial of the allegations therein contained.
At the trial of the cause, plaintiffs did not produce or introduce in evidence, the original note and mortgage, but did introduce, without objection, a copy of the same. The only testimony offered by plaintiffs was that of two of their employees, their office manager and their credit manager. The office manager identified the copies of the note and mortgage introduced in evidence as being such copies, and testified that the procedure followed by plaintiffs in handling such matters is that after the note and mortgage are made out they are given to the witness, and witness sets up a ledger sheet on the account, after which the note and mortgage are filed at the court house and payments thereon are entered on the ledger sheet. Witness identified the ledger sheet set up on defendant's account, which was introduced in evidence, and which showed that defendant had been credited with one payment in the amount of $37.10. The witness also testified that the note had not been paid and that the balance due thereon was $408.10, but on cross-examination testified that she had no personal recollection of the matter and that her testimony was based solely on the information contained in the ledger sheet.
Plaintiffs' credit manager testified that the note had not been paid and that the balance due thereon was $408.10. Upon cross-examination, however, the witness testified that he didn't know of his own knowledge whether the debt had been paid or not, and that he stated it had not been paid because he had no record of it having been paid. After plaintiff rested, defendant offered in evidence the original note, the original mortgage, both of which were apparently in defendant's possession, and a letter dated August 18, 1955, from plaintiffs to defendant, and likewise rested. The original note was stamped 'Paid _____ Parrish & Clark, by _____, Cashier'. The original mortgage was stamped 'Released, Wm. T. Gable, Jr., Tulsa County Clerk, H. C. Deputy.' The letter from plaintiffs to defendant is as follows:
'Mr. Roy E. Hanna,
5560 South Cinn.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
'Dear Mr. Hanna:
'We are enclosing note marked 'paid' together with chattel mortgage which has been released by the county clerk.
'We thank you again for the business and for the fine manner in which you paid the obligation.
'Please call any time we may be of service.
'Office Manager.
Plaintiffs then moved for a directed verdict which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Household Finance Co., Inc. v. Watson, 9686
...7 Mo. 587 (1842); Hays v. Odom, 79 Mo.App. 425, 428 (1899); Meffert v. Lawson, 289 Mo. 337, 233 S.W. 31, 38(6) (1921); Hanna v. Parrish, Okl., 317 P.2d 745, 748 (1957); Pueblo Bank & Trust Company v. McMartin, 31 Colo.App. 546, 506 P.2d 759, 762 (1972); Clarendon County, S.C. v. Curtis, 46 ......
- Cord v. Neuhoff
-
95-61 La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/95, United Companies Lending Corp. v. Falterman
...of our civil code is consistent with these views. Our adoption of U.C.C. section 605 does not displace this article. In Hanna v. G.Y. Parrish, 317 P.2d 745 (Okla.1957) the court considered a similar situation to the one at bar. In Hanna the debtor testified the note had been paid. The credi......
-
BAER v. WARREN
...instrument are not on point, but the theories applied provide some guidance in addressing the issues presented. In Hanna v. Parrish, 1957 OK 277, 317 P.2d 745, a note was marked “paid” and returned to the borrower by a lender, and a mortgage was cancelled. There, the Court found whether the......