Newsom v. Medis

• Decision Date: 26 December 1951
• Docket Number: No. 34739,34739
• Citation: Newsom v. Medis, 239 P.2d 784, 205 Okla. 574 (Okla. 1951)
• Parties: NEWSOM v. MEDIS.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 784

239 P.2d 784

205 Okla. 574

NEWSOM v. MEDIS.

No. 34739.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 26, 1951.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. If there is any testimony reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury, and said verdict has been approved by the trial court, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal.

2. Under modern theory, duress is to be tested, not solely by the nature of the acts or threats, but also by the state of mind of the victim induced by such acts and threats.

Percy Hughes, Hobart, for plaintiff in error.

Carmon C. Harris, Oklahoma Ciry, for defendant in error.

BINGAMAN, Justice.

This action was brought by Thelma Medis, as plaintiff, against Tex Newsom, also known as R. L. Newsom, to recover the balance due under a contract for the sale of real estate, and for punitive or exemplary damages because of duress practiced upon her by the defendant. The trial court overruled defendant's demurrer to the petition and his motion for directed verdict, and submitted the cause to the jury, which returned a verdict in the sum of $1700.00, the amount claimed by her to be due from defendant for his breach of the contract of sale, and for punitive damages in the sum of $2500.00. Motion for new trial was duly filed and overruled and defendant appeals.

The defendant contends that the evidence was so insufficient that the trial court should have directed the verdict in his favor. This requires a brief analysis of the evidence.

The plaintiff testified that she was the owner of a residence at 2805 Northwest 26th Street, in Oklahoma City, which she listed for sale with defendant, who was engaged in the real estate business, at a selling price of $16,000.00 or $16,500.00; that being anxious to effect an early sale so that she could get some money to invest in an oil enterprise she, shortly after listing the property and being unable to dispose of it at the price specified, told defendant that she would take $14,000.00 net to her and requested him to try to sell it at that price; that thereupon he advised her that if she was willing to take that price for the property he was willing to take the property and make some money on it; that she agreed that she would sell the property to defendant for the sum of $14,000.00, and that defendant would pay her $3,000.00 down and the balance when the property was sold. It is admitted that there was a loan of $8,000.00 against the property so that under her version of the transaction she would receive $6,000.00. She testified that defendant brought a blank deed and a check for $3,000.00 to her; that sitting in his car, outside the office building where she worked, she signed the blank deed and received the $3,000.00 check from him, and that at that time he told her that if anything happened to him she would not be fully protected, and thereupon wrote upon the back of one of his business cards the following memorandum: 'Thelma Medis has $3000.00 more coming on deed signed on 2805 NW 26 above the 3000.00 check I have given her this date 10/28/46 /s/ Tex Newsom.'

She testified that after this transaction she did not make the oil deal she planned, but signed a contract and put up $500.00 to buy another property on Cashion Street, in Oklahoma City, which she decided to give or turn over to her son. That such deal had to be closed in thirty days from the date she signed the contract and made the deposit, and that on a number of occasions she importuned the defendant to hurry and sell the property which he had purchased from her so that she could obtain the balance of the purchase price. She further testified that he thereafter advised her that he had not bought the property from her but held it under listing only, and that she, having lost the memorandum above set forth, had no evidence that he had agreed to purchase the property; that shortly before the time to complete the deal on the Cashion Street property expired he had her execute a note and mortgage on the Cashion Street property, threatening that if she refused to do so he would put the deed which she had theretofore signed on the 26th Street property on record and she would not get any more money out of the deal; that thereafter he sold the 2lth Street property for $12,750.00 and that out of that deal she received the sum of $4300.00, which was applied on the purchase price of the Cashion Street property. When the defendant produced for her inspection a written contract signed by her, for the sale of the 26th Street property at that price, she testified that she never knowingly signed such contract and did not know the purchaser, and that the only way she could explain it was that she signed the contract at the time she executed the note and mortgage, without knowing what it was; that she was not sure how many papers she signed that day, but that she signed them because of defendant's threat as above stated. From her testimony it appears that she was in the habit of buying and selling real estate as a speculative enterprise and that she was employed in the office of an insurance company. She testified that she had handled several deals through the defendant; had great confidence and trust in him and that for that reason entered into the verbal agreement for the sale of her property with him. Shortly before this action was filed she found the memorandum which she had theretofore...