Harlow Publ'g Co. v. Walden
Decision Date | 01 May 1934 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 22107 |
Citation | 1934 OK 263,32 P.2d 278,168 Okla. 163 |
Parties | HARLOW PUBLISHING CO. v. WALDEN. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Bills and Notes--Delivery of Note Upon Condition or as Escrow.
A promissory note may be delivered by the maker to the payee upon condition, or as an escrow.
2. Same--Nonperformance of Conditions of Delivery as Defense in Action on Note.
Where the maker of a note delivers it to the payee with the agreement that it shall not take effect until the happening of a certain contingency or the performance of a certain condition, and where neither the contingency has occurred nor the condition been performed, the note never became operative, and an answer alleging such conditional delivery and the nonperformance of the conditions imposed upon delivery, states a defense to an action upon the note.
3. Evidence--Parol Evidence Admissible to Show Delivery of Written Instrument Was Conditional.
Evidence offered for the purpose of showing that a written instrument was delivered conditionally does not constitute contradicting or varying a written instrument by parol. Such evidence does not tend to show any modification or alteration of the written agreement, but that it never became operative, and that its obligation never commenced. A written contract must be in force to make it subject to the parol evidence rule.
4. Bills and Notes--Judgment for Payee for Only Amount Tendered Sustained.
Record examined, and held, that the answer of the defendant stated a defense to the action and that the evidence amply sustains the allegations contained therein and is sufficient to support the verdict, and judgment of the court.
Appeal from District Court, Love County; John B. Ogden, Judge.
Action by the Harlow Publishing Company against Asa E. Walden on promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff for amount of defendant's tender. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Frank Eagin, for plaintiff in error.
Guy H. Sigler. P. M. Jackson, Crawford W. Cameron, and J. Woody Dixon, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from the district court of Love county. Harlow Publishing Company is plaintiff in error, and Asa E. Walden is defendant in error. The parties occupy the same relative position in this court as they occupied in the trial court, and will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.
¶2 Plaintiff commenced its action by filing its petition declaring on a promissory note, praying for judgment for the principal sum of $ 88.89; the sum of $ 48.49 interest, and $ 28 attorney's fee. The petition is in all essential respects in regular form. The defendant's answer is in the form of a general denial and contains the following affirmative defensive matter:
¶3 Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was overruled by the court and exceptions saved; plaintiff objected to the introduction of any evidence and moved for judgment on the opening statement of defendant and requested an instructed verdict, all of which motions and objections were overruled by the court and exceptions saved. Exceptions were likewise taken to the adverse ruling of the court upon plaintiff's objection to the introduction of certain testimony upon the grounds that it varied the statements of a written contract.
¶4 The cause was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict ill favor of plaintiff in the sum of $ 20, with interest thereon from date. The judgment of the court is that plaintiff recover the sum of $ 20 and $ 14.50 interest, and $ 17 attorney's fee, and costs...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bredouw v. Jones
...... conditional upon the defendants remaining in possession of the promises as lessee, citing, Harlow Publishing Co. v. Walden, 168 Okl. 163, 32 P.2d 278; Farmers' Bank of Roff v. Nichols, 25 Okl. 547, ......
-
Fullerton's Estate, In re
...... In Harlow Pub. Co. v. Walden, 168 Okl. 163, 32 P.2d 278, we stated: . 'Evidence offered for the purpose of ......
-
Sharp v. Young
......299, 237 P. 578); and such contingency may be shown by parol evidence (Harlow Pub. Co. v. Walden, 168 Okla. 163, 32 P.2d 278). ¶11 By proving the aforesaid ......
-
American Perforating Co. v. Oklahoma State Bank
......Fullerton, Deceased (1962) Okl., 375 P.2d 933; Harlow Publishing Company v. Walden (1934), 168 Okl. 163, 32 P.2d 278; Hogue et al. v. McClain County ......