Harris v. V. S. Cook Lbr. Co.
Decision Date | 15 September 1931 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 19606 |
Citation | 3 P.2d 694,1931 OK 524,152 Okla. 7 |
Parties | HARRIS et al. v. V. S. COOK LBR. CO. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Mortgages--New Trial--Defendants in Mortgage Foreclosure Held Entitled to New Trial.
Record examined, and new trial ordered.
2. Same--Motion for New Trial not Required to Be Filed Within Three Days After Answers by Jury to Special Interrogatories.
It was not necessary in this case to file a motion for new trial within three days of the answers by the jury of the special interrogatories submitted to it.
3. Same--Answers to Special Interrogatories Merely Advisory to Court.
In this case the answers of the jury to the interrogatories were merely advisory to the court.
4. Same--New Trial Improperly Refused Where Answers to Interrogatories and Judgment not Sustained by Evidence.
The trial court stated that it did not believe that the answers to the interrogatories, on which judgment was rendered, were sustained by sufficient evidence. This court concurs in that view, and holds that the trial court should have awarded a new trial in that case and remands the case for that purpose.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Sam Hooker, Judge.
Action by the V. S. Cook Lumber Company against V. V. Harris, Young Pepper, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, new trial denied, and defendants named appeal. Reversed and remanded.
John Halley, Ames, Cochran, Ames & Monnet, Everest, Dudley & Brewer, and C. E. Hall, for plaintiffs in error.
Rainey, Flynn, Green & Anderson, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is a proceeding in error to review the judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county, Honorable Sam Hooker, judge. This case was started by V. S. Cook Lumber Company, a corporation, filing in that court on June 27, 1924, a suit to foreclose a second mortgage executed by E. Highfill to it on December 18, 1923, to secure a promissory note for $ 4,750 due June 18, 1924, signed by E. Highfill, and covering lots 29 and 30 of block 9, Gault's addition to Oklahoma City. The mortgage was subject to a mortgage for $ 15,000 to Local Building & Loan Association. The defendants in the suit were V. V. Harris and E. Highfill. There were two counts in the petition. The first count detailed the execution of the note and mortgage by Highfill, and detailed the connection of defendant Harris, as found on page 8 of the case-made, as follows:
¶2 The conclusion of this count is a statement that plaintiff was entitled to a personal judgment on the note against Harris. The second count adopted the allegations of the first count, recounted the execution by Highfill to plaintiff of the note and mortgage, its recordation on January 4, 1924, and the execution by a former owner, Mary J. Husselman and her husband, W. E. Husselman, of a mortgage to Local Building & Loan Association on the property to secure $ 15,000, and set out the note and mortgage. It called attention to the failure by the owner to pay taxes and installment of interest and on stock called for in the note, and that failure would render the mortgage subject to foreclosure. It further alleged a conveyance by the Husselmans to Highfill on June 13, 1923, conveying the property, subject to the $ 15,000 mortgage. The allegation as to the assumption by Harris of the debt is found on page 13, and is as follows:
¶3 The third count called attention to the covenant of Highfill to pay taxes, and the failure of the defendants to pay them, and also to pay installments due under the first mortgage. There was a prayer for relief on the first cause and for personal judgment against defendants on the note for $ 5,444.46 and interest, and on the second cause for $ 1,463.89 and interest, and on the third, that unless defendants paid within six months, the property be sold, subject to the loan company's mortgage.
¶4 Harris appeared and filed a motion to quash, followed by a demurrer. Young Pepper got leave to intervene, and did so by showing that he held the loan company's mortgage by purchase made June 30, 1924, and sought foreclosure. Plaintiff demurred to the answer and cross-petition, and demurrer was overruled. The Harris demurrer was also overruled, and he filed an answer February 14, 1925. He admitted that plaintiff's mortgage was subject to foreclosure. He admitted the conveyance to himself, but denied personal liability, and denied express assumption and the deduction from the purchase price of the mortgage indebtedness. He denied the payment to the loan company of anything for taxes or on the note. Plaintiff replied to the cross-petition of Young Pepper. It withdrew its admission of priority pleaded in the former pleadings, and pleaded that the mortgage had been bought by Harris, the owner of the property, for the purpose of cheating the plaintiff, and deduced from the conduct of Harris that the ownership of the property and of the first mortgage had become united in Harris, and therefore the first mortgage was discharged, thereby making plaintiff's mortgage superior. It set up, also, that the plaintiff was entitled to carry out the conditions of the loan company's mortgage by payment of $ 208.50 a month until the stock matured, and getting the benefit of the stock maturity, and that when the stock was canceled the note and mortgage were canceled. The prayer on this answer varied from its original prayer as found on page 65, as follows:
¶5 A reply to Harris' answer was made withdrawing its statements as to the priority of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beason v. I. E. Miller Servs., Inc.
...authorized party who was not more than fifty percent negligent to recover a percentage of damages sustained).94 Harris v. V.S. Cook Lumber , 1931 OK 524, 3 P.2d 694, 703. See , e.g. , Weatherly v. Higgins , 6 Ind. 73 (1854) (jury returned a special verdict setting out facts but did not spec......
-
Clark v. Ellison
...fact, in a mortgage foreclosure suit the jury's answer to special interrogatories are merely advisory to the court. Harris v. V. S. Cook Lbr. Co., 152 Okla. 7, 3 P.2d 694. This rule will apply as well to an action to establish and foreclose vendor's lien. ¶39 The general verdict rendered ag......
- V.S. Cook Lumber Co. v. Harris
-
Billingsley v. Parmenter
...P. 920. The jury's findings in such case are merely advisory (Vose v. U.S. Cities Corp., 152 Okla. 295, 7 P.2d 132; Harris v. V. S. Cook Lbr. Co., 152 Okla. 7, 3 P.2d 694); and this applies as well in cases of equitable cognizance where the parties are entitled to a jury as a matter of righ......