Mohawk Oil Corp. v. Simpson

• Decision Date: 28 November 1922
• Docket Number: 3786.
• Citation: 285 F. 149
• Parties: MOHAWK OIL CORPORATION et al. v. SIMPSON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

285 F. 149

MOHAWK OIL CORPORATION et al. v. SIMPSON et al.

No. 3786.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

November 28, 1922

Stanley Boykin, of Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiffs in error.

George Thompson, Jr., of Fort Worth, Tex. (Thompson, Barwise Wharton & Hiner, of Fort Worth, Tex., on the brief), for defendants in error.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.

KING Circuit Judge.

The Monitor Oil Company, a common-law trust, executed two promissory notes, dated December 13, 1919, to R. B. Pruitt trustee, aggregating $14,000. By a contract of even date the Monitor Company transferred all of its assets to J. D. Hawk acting as trustee for a corporation to be and thereafter formed, known as Mohawk Oil Corporation. One of the considerations for the execution of said conveyance to Hawk trustee, is recited to be the payment of said two notes. The assets appear to have been transferred to said corporation when formed.

The notes not having been paid at maturity, and the holders thereof pressing for payment, an agreement was entered into on July 1, 1920, by the holders thereof and said corporation and certain persons then guaranteeing said notes, wherein the transfer of said assets of said common-law trust to said corporation by said Hawks, trustee, is recited, and that in said transfer said Mohawk Corporation contracted and agreed to assume the payment of said notes, and it was agreed by the holders thereof to extend their maturity until September 29, 1920, and that the Mohawk Corporation and certain persons who then guaranteed their payment would then pay said notes, and waived any and all defenses they might have to them or any part thereof. The notes were not paid, and this suit has been brought on said agreement against said Mohawk Oil Corporation and said guarantors.

To this suit various defenses were interposed. On the trial, both plaintiffs and defendants requested the court to instruct a verdict, respectively, for them, and the court thereupon instructed a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount appearing to be then due on said notes. The defendants bring the case to this court.

The principal defense urged is that the original notes executed by the Monitor Company were void. Questions have been raised as to the time when they were in fact executed; it being claimed that they were not executed until January 28, 1920, and were then dated December 13, 1919. It is also insisted that they were never authorized by the trustee of the Monitor Company and that they were fraudulent and void.

1. Where each party requests the court to direct a verdict in its favor without qualification, as is shown by this record, there is no error in the court acting on such joint request and directing such verdict.

'As both parties moved for a ruling, and as there was nothing more, according to Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U.S. 154 it stood admitted that there was no question of fact sufficient to prevent a ruling being made, and the motions together amounted to a request that the court should find any facts necessary to make it; so that unless the ruling was wrong as matter of law the judgment must stand. ' Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220...