Marysville Development Co. v. Hargis

• Decision Date: 31 July 1925
• Citation: 239 P. 522,41 Idaho 257
• Parties: MARYSVILLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. E. L. HARGIS, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

239 P. 522

41 Idaho 257

MARYSVILLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. E. L. HARGIS, Respondent

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 31, 1925

CONTRACT-PAYMENT-PLEADING-FINDINGS-APPEAL AND ERROR.

1. Where an agreement to discharge a debt for a smaller sum than is due is fully executed and such discharge is evidenced by a written receipt for the lesser sum in discharge of the greater, there is a valid and irrevocable discharge of the debt.

2. In an action to recover money due, the defendant, under an answer containing a general denial, may prove payment.

3. Findings of fact are to be liberally construed in support of the judgment.

4. A judgment will not be reversed for want of a finding, unless it appears from the record that there was evidence before the court from which it was required to make a finding which would countervail its other findings.

5. Where there is a conflict in the evidence, and there is evidence in the record which, if uncontradicted, would support the judgment, this court must affirm it.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, for Fremont County. Hon. George W. Edgington, Judge.

Action for balance due on contract. Judgment for defendant. Affirmed.

Judgment sustained. Costs awarded to respondent. Petition for rehearing denied.

A. H Wilkie, for Appellant.

There must be a finding of fact on every material issue, whether raised by the complaint or by an affirmative defense in the answer. (Carson v. Thews, 2 Idaho 162, 9 P. 605; Standley v. Flint, 10 Idaho 629, 79 P. 815; Jensen v. Bumgarner, 25 Idaho 355, 137 P. 529.)

Failure to find upon all material issues is ground for reversal. (First Nat. Bank v. Williams, 2 Idaho 618 (670), 23 P. 552; Wood v. Broderson, 12 Idaho 190, 85 P. 490.)

Findings No. 8 and 9 are mere conclusions and not sufficient as findings of fact to support a judgment. (Stoneburner v Stoneburner, 11 Idaho 603, 83 P. 938; Cargnani v. Cargnani, 16 Cal.App. 96, 116 P. 306.)

A verbal agreement to reduce the contract price, or to accept less than the amount actually due, in consideration of payments being made that are at the time past due, is void for want of consideration. (Elliott on Contracts, sec. 217; 13 C. J. 351.)

Thos. B. Hargis and C. Redmon Moon, for Respondent.

No finding is necessary where the allegations are not denied. (1 Sutherland, Pleading and Practice, sec. 1169, and cases cited; Faulkner v. Rodoni, 104 Cal. 140, 37 P. 883.)

If a court makes a finding upon an issue, the determination of which controls the judgment and a finding upon any other issue would not justify a contrary judgment, then the failure to find upon the issue for which the appellant contends, is not reversible error. (1 Sutherland, Pleading and Practice, sec. 1172; Tage v. Alberts, 2 Idaho 249 (271), 13 P. 19; 2 R. C. L., sec. 200, p. 242.)

In findings of fact by a court where the case is tried before the court without a jury, only findings as to ultimate facts are to be set out. (Hamilton v. Spokane & P. R. R. Co., 3 Idaho 164, 28 P. 408; Peco v. Cuyas, 47 Cal. 174; C. S., sec. 6867.)

Where an action is for money claimed, whether anything is due or not is the ultimate fact and it is not necessary for the court in his findings to set out the various items of debit and credit. (1 Sutherland, Pleading and Practice, p. 737, sec. 1161; Jacobs v. Ludemann, 137 Cal. 176, 69 P. 965; Broadbent v. Brumback, 2 Idaho 336 (366), 16 P. 555.)

"An order granting or denying a continuance will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion." (Rankin v. Caldwell, 15 Idaho 625, 99 P. 108; Berlin Machine Works v. Lumber Co., 32 Idaho 566, 186 P. 513; Walsh v. Winston Bros. Co., 18 Idaho 768, 111 P. 1090.)

GIVENS, J. William A. Lee, C. J., and Wm. E. Lee, Budge and Taylor, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

Appellant through mesne conveyances became the owner of what was commenced as a Carey Irrigation system and brought suit to foreclose because of nonpayment a water right contract issued by the original company to respondent's assignor. Respondent denied that anything was due and unpaid on the contract and claimed overpayment of $ 58.54, which appellant admitted to the extent of $ 20.73 as an offset against the amount claimed to be due. From judgment for respondent entered by the court after trial without a jury the appeal was taken.

The records of one of the intermediary companies introduced as exhibits by appellant showed that on the 15th of December, 1911, three installments, aggregating $ 1,490.40, were due and unpaid and the following notation appears after these three items:

572.00

"Paid 4/4/12

320.00

for these three pay'ts."

320.00

1212.00

On another similar exhibit was the following entry: "April 4, 1912. Rec'd $ 1212 in full to date," being opposite the third of the three items mentioned, and on another exhibit appears at the same place "4/4/14 Pd. $ 1212.00 Accepted by Co. to date."

Respondent Hargis testified that at the time this payment was made it was understood that it was to be in full payment of the $ 1,490.40 then due and further testified without objection that at the time this payment was so made a receipt was given to him from the then general manager of appellant's predecessor in interest, for payment in full up to that time but that the receipt had since been mislaid.

Appellant contends that a verbal agreement to reduce the contract price, or to accept less than the amount actually due, in consideration of payments being made that were at the time past due, is void for want of consideration. Such no doubt may be the general rule and though there is some conflict in the authorities there is a well-recognized exception to the effect that where an agreement to discharge a debt by the payment of smaller sum than is due is fully executed, and such discharge is evidenced by a written receipt for the lesser sum in full satisfaction of the greater, there is a valid and irrevocable discharge of the debt (Dreyfus & Co. v. Roberts, 75 Ark. 354, 112 Am. St. 67, 5 Ann. Cas. 521, 87 S.W. 641, 69 L. R. A., 823; Frye v. Hubbell, 74 N.H. 358, 68 A. 325, 17 L. R. A., N. S., 1197; Diehl v. McKinnon, 173 Iowa 32, 155 N.W. 259; North State Fire Ins. Co. v. Dillard, 88 Ark. 473, 115 S.W. 154; 1 C. J. 543; Elliott on Contracts, par. 222), for the reason that after a contract has been fully executed on both sides the question of consideration becomes immaterial (Brackett v. Lofgren, 140 Minn. 52, 167 N.W. 274, L. R. A. 1918F, 998), and while it is disputed that this payment was made or received with such understanding, the evidence being conflicting and there being sufficient evidence if uncontradicted to sustain the trial judge, the situation presented an issue of fact upon which his conclusion is final. (Singh v. McKee, 38 Idaho 656, 225 P. 400; Walling v. McMillan Sheep Co., 40 Idaho 513, 234 P. 152; Powelson v. Kinney, 40 Idaho 565, 234 P. 935.)

Appellant further urges that under the terms of a trust agreement given by the construction company to the American Trust and Savings Bank of the city of Chicago, the construction company in making collections of payments on the settlers' water contracts had no right to allow this discount. While the agreement only authorized the company to collect and remit to the trustee, there is evidence in the record showing that most of the water contracts were subject to rebate, and were rebated by the company, and there is evidence that the trustee knew and acquiesced in the course of conduct of the construction company as its collecting agent including the granting of the discount in question. While the evidence is none too clear upon this point there is sufficient evidence to justify...