Jones v. McFarland

• Decision Date: 29 March 1937
• Docket Number: 32663
• Citation: 178 Miss. 282,173 So. 296
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JONES v. MCFARLAND

173 So. 296

178 Miss. 282

JONES v. MCFARLAND

No. 32663

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 29, 1937

Division B

1. CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

Where Federal Land Bank, as condition for making loan to debtor with which to pay existing indebtedness, required creditor to agree to scaling down of debt, chattel mortgage taken by creditor for difference between original indebtedness and amount received in satisfaction thereof was void as against public policy.

2. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

Party may validly accept less than amount due in full satisfaction of debt.

3 CONTRACTS.

Contract made in violation of public policy is void.

HON EDGAR M. LANE, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit Court of Jasper county HON. EDGAR M. LANE Judge.

Action by J. A. McFarland, substituted trustee in trust deed in favor of Elizabeth Russell, against S. L. Jones. From art adverse judgment, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

O. M. Oates and G. N. Brown, both of Bay Springs, for appellant.

The verdict of the jury was absolutely contrary to the law and the evidence in this case.

It is the law that where a creditor accepts an amount from a third party for his debtor in a sum less than the debt and gives a receipt in full it is accord and satisfaction of the full payment of indebtedness.

Y. & M. V. R. Co. v. Sideboard, 161 Miss. 4, 133 So. 669; May Bros. v. Doggett, 124 So. 476, 155 Miss. 849; Phillips v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 125 So. 705, 156 Miss. 41; Cooper v. Ry. Co., 35 So. 162, 82 Miss. 634; Clayton v. Clarke, 21 So. 566, 74 Miss. 499; Darrill v. Dodds, 30 So. 4, 78 Miss. 912; A. & V. R. Co. v. Kropp, 129 Miss. 616, 92 So. 691.

In the case at bar, a loan was consummated by appellant at the request and approval of appellee from the land bank commissioner, a third party, and receipts were issued to third party in full payment and with a promise not to attempt to collect any balance under the old debt. The rule is in a case of this kind that accord and satisfaction is available as a defense for without this debtor probably would not have been able to pay any portion of the debt.

1 R. C. L., page 193, pars. 28, 29.

It is the prevailing rule of law that it favors the debtor; and that where a receipt is definitely descriptive of what is intended to be affected by it, it cannot be as-sailed by parol testimony except for fraud.

21 R. C. L., pages 122-123, par. 136.

Appellant further contends that the court erred in not sustaining his motion for new trial.

Welch & Cooper, of Laurel, and J. A. McFarland, of Bay Springs, for appellee.

Appellant says that the deed of trust was given for money which Miss Russell was to advance but which was not advanced. The jury did not believe this. They believed that since the attorney for the Federal Land Bank had represented that the bank was not concerned about anything except the land and appellant could go ahead and give a valid deed of trust on the mule and this was agreed to by all parties, then there was a valid obligation.

It is very true that the cases cited by appellant correctly represent the present state of the law in Mississippi. But we are not dealing with such a situation. Miss Elizabeth Russell refused to scale her debt and would not sign any of the documents unless the appellant agreed to give this deed of trust on the mule. The Federal Land Bank's own attorney represented that the release referred to the lands and not to personal property. If this be true, it would be thoroughly inequitable and unjust to permit the appellant to utilize the release to defeat a claim when appellee's execution of that release was induced by the appellant's promise to execute the instrument whose property is here involved.

OPINION

Ethridge, P. J.

Appellee, J. A. McFarland, substituted trustee in a trust deed in favor of Elizabeth Russell, instituted this suit in a justice of the peace court which rendered a judgment in favor of appellee from which an appeal was taken to the circuit court resulting in a jury verdict for appellee, hence this appeal by appellant. This is a replevin suit for one mule alleged to be of the value of $ 75.

It appears from the record that S. L. Jones, the appellant executed a trust deed to Elizabeth Russell to secure a note due by him to her for, approximately, $ 600, conveying thereby real estate and personal property. In the early part of 1934, Elizabeth Russell needed the money due her under said deed of trust, and an arrangement was made with the Federal Land Bank for a loan to S. L. Jones amounting to $ 453.10. Elizabeth Russell signed an agreement to accept this amount in satisfaction of her debt and deed of trust, said agreement, among other things, reciting that: "Whereas, the Federal Land Bank of New Orleans and or the Land Bank Commissioner, has loaned to debtor the moneys with which to pay said indebtedness upon the condition and agreement that said...