Hartley v. Riley
| Decision Date | 21 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 10488 |
| Parties | HARTLEY et al. v. RILEY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Bills and Notes--Consideration for Note--Payment of Doubtful Debt--Parol Evidence Affecting Writing.
Where three parties participate in a purchase of a farm and under such circumstances as may constitute them a partnership in a land investment, and the land is purchased and part of the consideration is paid and a deed taken in the name of one of the parties, who gives a mortgage back on the land for the balance of the purchase money, and afterwards one of the three parties, and not being the one to whom the land is deeded, approaches the grantor, asking him to accept payment of what he called his part of the purchase money and asking that he be released from the mortgage and that the part of the land that he claimed be released from the mortgage, which the grantor refused to do; it being agreed, however, that the party should pay the grantor a certain sum of money, and this he did, and the grantor gave him a note covering the amount of such payment, and afterwards in a suit to foreclose the mortgage on the land by the grantor the party so making such payment and taking said note from the grantor, in a cross-bill, sought judgment on the note and against the grantor--held, that the payment of a debt, or the voluntary payment of a questionable debt, cannot be a consideration for a note given by one so receiving said money, and the note is void for want of consideration. Held, further, that parol proof of the transaction contemporaneous with the taking of said note is competent to show the purpose of taking the same and the manner of payment or liquidation of said note, and does not contravene the rule that parol proofs cannot be taken to contradict the terms of a written contract.
2. Appeal and Error -- Questions of Fact--Findings.
Where a case is tried to the court without a jury, the findings of the court upon disputed questions of fact will be given the same weight and effect as the verdict of a jury, and, where reasonably supported by the evidence, will not be disturbed in the Supreme Court. (Schafer v. Lee, 64 Okla. 106, 166 P. 94.)
Error from District Court, Okmulgee County; John W. Hayson, Judge.
Action by L. D. Riley against W. L. Hartley and others for mortgage foreclosure. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
C. D. Bennett, for plaintiffs in error.
Gasper Edwards, for defendant in error.
¶1 This suit was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county, Okla., by L. D. Riley, plaintiff below, defendant in error herein, against W. L. and R. B. Hartley and C. T. Morrison, defendants below, plaintiffs in error herein, to foreclose a mortgage on real estate given to secure an indebtedness claimed to be due L. D. Riley. The amount of the mortgage was $ 10,475, with interest from date. Actual service was had upon C. T. Morrison in the state of Oklahoma. Service was had upon R. B. Hartley in the state of North Carolina, which merely amounts to constructive service, and service was had upon W. L. Hartley in the state of Missouri. C. T. Morrison appeared and filed separate answer, denying the allegations of the petition. W. L. Hartley filed several pleas in said cause; first filing motion to make first petition of plaintiff more definite and certain. Plaintiff filed a first and second amended petition. W. L. Hartley filed an answer denying the allegations of the petition, denying liability on the notes and mortgage, and set up a cross-bill against the plaintiff to recover on a note for $ 1,165, and interest and attorneys fees, against the plaintiff, L. D. Riley.
¶2 It appears from the record that the two Hartleys and Morrison were sought to be held by the plaintiff as joint purchasers of the plaintiff''s farm, or as on a partnership purchase. The deed appears to have been made to R. B. Hartley, part of the consideration paid and notes and mortgage given for the balance of the purchase money, signed by R. B. Hartley and wife; mortgage taken and the land sold. To repeat, it appears that Morrison and W. L. Hartley did not sign the notes or mortgage, but were sought to be held by the mortgagor and plaintiff, L. D. Riley, upon the theory that they were joint purchasers with R. B. Hartley of the land. A jury was waived and the cause tried to the court. The court found the amount of the indebtedness due under the note and mortgage, rendered personal judgment against C. T. Morrison for the debt, and decreed foreclosure of the mortgage; refused to render personal judgment against R. B. Hartley, since there was no personal service on him, and did not render judgment against W. L. Hartley, since he was only partially liable and he had paid the portion for which he was liable to the plaintiff. The court refused to give W. L. Hartley judgment on his note, and canceled the note. To this last action of the court, W. L. Hartley excepted, filed a motion for a new trial, same was by the court overruled, and W. L. Hartley brings error to this court. W. L. Hartley, as plaintiff in error, filed a brief in support of his contentions. The issue before this court arises in this wise: After the deal for the land was consummated, W. L. Hartley contends, he paid L. D. Riley $ 1,200, which he claims in his plea was in the nature of a loan, and that L. D. Riley gave him a note for the repayment of said money. That afterwards another note was taken in lieu of the first note, for $ 1,166, and on this note, attached to a cross- plea, Hartley asks for judgment against L. D. Riley.
¶3 The plaintiff below, defendant in error herein, while contending in the court below for personal judgment against R. B. Hartley, which the court refused, is not asking for a modification of the judgment, but asks that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed, while R. B. Hartley contends that this court should direct judgment in his favor for the amount of the note, against L. D. Riley. The plaintiff below, L. D. Riley, as defendant in error herein, contends that the note was without consideration, that it was a voluntary, payment on the part of Hartley, recognizing his obligation to pay a certain portion of the purchase money, and that the note was only given in the nature of a receipt and without any understanding or agreement to repay Hartley, and that was the condition upon which the note was given and delivered. To this, Hartley replies, in substance, that the note, being in writing expresses an absolute obligation to pay on the part of Riley to him the sum specified in the note, and that the contention of Riley is an attempt to vary the terms of a written contract by parol proofs, and, hence, W. L. Hartley stands upon the letter of the written contract, the note.
¶4 We have reviewed the evidence of L. D. Riley, and also that of L. W. Hartley, relative to how this note came to be made and delivered to L. W. Hartley by L. D. Riley, and we find very little disagreement upon this score. Hartley admits that he came to Riley asking permission to pay what he regarded as his portion of the purchase money of the farm; that he be deeded one-sixth of the land, or, at least, that one-sixth of the land be...
To continue reading
Request your trial