Magee v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 12 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | 21,733 |
| Citation | 103 Kan. 558,175 P. 597 |
| Parties | R. S. MAGEE, Appellee, v. E. B. SNYDER and ADA SNYDER, Appellants, et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1918.
Appeal from Shawnee district court, division No. 2; GEORGE H WHITCOMB, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. WRITTEN CONTRACT--Assignment of Judgment--Oral Evidence. A jury being waived, it was not material error to permit the plaintiff's attorney to testify concerning a verbal agreement which the trial court correctly ruled could not be received to vary the written contract of assignment of the judgment involved herein.
2. SAME--Satisfaction of Judgment--Admission by Judgment Creditor. By entering satisfaction of the judgment the judgment creditor admitted its payment, which was, in effect, an admission that he was under obligation to pay his assignee his portion thereof.
3. SAME--Order of Court Directing Payment--Properly Made. The trial court correctly directed payment to be made out of the proceeds of the notes in satisfaction of the judgment, when such notes should be paid.
4. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT--Consideration. The evidence shows a sufficient consideration for the assignment of the judgment.
5. SAME--Failure to Pay Taxes. The mere failure to pay taxes on his interest in the judgment does not preclude a recovery by the plaintiff.
W. A. S. Bird, of Topeka, for the appellants.
H. W. Page, of Topeka, for the appellee.
Snyder sold on time a restaurant to the Roushes for $ 500, Magee signing the note as surety. Snyder sued on the note, and Magee paid him $ 250 on condition that he be released from any further liability, and that any judgment which might be recovered should be assigned to him to the amount of $ 250, with interest, the assigned portion of the judgment "to be due and payable . . . when the full amount of said note and interest sued upon herein is paid with the costs of the above entitled action." Snyder recovered judgment for $ 591.75. A good many years afterwards, without the knowledge of Magee, he entered satisfaction of this judgment upon the records in the clerk's office, having settled with the Roushes by taking a note for $ 400 to his daughter, Ada Snyder, and a note for $ 50 to himself. Magee sued Snyder and daughter to recover his $ 250 with interest. At the close of the evidence it was stated by the court that, the plaintiff having no question of fact he wished to submit to the jury, and the only question the defendants desired to submit being the good faith of the transaction between Snyder and his daughter, if the evidence were submitted to the court it would find that there was no bad faith in this transaction; whereupon, the parties waived a jury, and on the one issue of fact the court found that the note for $ 400 was transferred by Snyder to his daughter for a preexisting debt, and that she became owner subject to any claim that the plaintiff might have, provided he was entitled to any claim or lien, which question was left open for further consideration and determination. The court found that there was no fraud on the part of the Snyders in the matter of the transfer of the note to the daughter.
Later, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and upon passing on the motion for a new trial findings of fact were made. These were, in substance, that for a valuable consideration Snyder transferred to Magee an interest in the judgment that might be rendered, setting out the written assignment and contract; that the judgment rendered in 1908 was revived in June, 1915; that in April, 1916, Snyder, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, entered satisfaction, receiving from the Roushes the two notes, the one for $ 400 being made payable to the daughter, to whom Snyder was indebted in the sum of about $ 400; and that by agreement between Snyder and the daughter the note was executed to her in payment of his debt, the daughter taking it in good faith and without knowledge of the agreement between Snyder and Magee.
As a matter of law it was concluded that the plaintiff was the owner of and entitled to recover an interest in the notes to the amount of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial