Quayle v. Ream

• Citation: 99 P. 707,15 Idaho 666
• Parties: WILLIAM QUAYLE, Respondent, v. W. D. REAM, Appellant
• Decision Date: 16 January 1909
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

99 P. 707

15 Idaho 666

WILLIAM QUAYLE, Respondent, v. W. D. REAM, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 16, 1909

VERDICT-INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN-NO SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT.

1. Held, that there is no substantial conflict in the evidence and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for the County of Bear Lake. Hon. Alfred Budge, Judge.

Action on a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff. Reversed.

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted. Costs of this appeal awarded to the appellant.

A. B Gough, and Jesse R. S. Budge, for Appellant.

Thos L. Glenn, for Respondent.

Counsel cite no authorities.

SULLIVAN, C. J. Stewart and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, who is respondent here, to recover the sum of $ 605.34, with interest, on a certain promissory note dated April 11, 1905. The defendant answered, admitting the execution of the note, and alleging that on the day prior to its execution an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant, whereby credits claimed by the defendant in a settlement between them, which settlement resulted in the execution of said note, were to be allowed if upon further investigation the same were found to be just; and defendant avers that said credits were just and should have been allowed but that the plaintiff failed and refused to allow them. The defendant tendered into the court the difference between the credits so claimed and the amount due on the note. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $ 756.54, and an attorney's fee of $ 75. A motion for a new trial was made, based on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and judgment, which motion was denied, and from the order of denial, this appeal is taken.

The only question presented on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment.

It is provided by sec. 4824, Rev. Codes, among other things, that whenever there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, the same shall not be set aside. We shall therefore review the evidence to ascertain whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.

The plaintiff, in order to establish his case, introduced said promissory note, and testified that it was given to him by the defendant, and that he was the owner and holder thereof, and that no part of it had been paid. On cross-examination he testified that said note was given pursuant to an agreement of settlement had between himself and the defendant the day before the note was given; that the consideration of the note was for "some accounts on sheep and different things; there were different accounts existing between myself and Mr. Ream, and I requested him to put it in the form of a note." He further testified that he talked the matter over with the defendant on April 10, 1905, and that plaintiff finally claimed there was $ 605.34 due him from the defendant; that there was some controversy between them in regard to several items of the account, and plaintiff agreed that if it was afterward found that he had received anything which he had not given defendant credit for, he would give him credit for it. After introducing some proof as to the attorney's fee, plaintiff rested.

In support of his defense, the wife of the defendant was sworn and testified. She testified that the plaintiff came to the defendant's home on April 10, 1905, and the accounts between plaintiff and defendant were gone over. She also testified that on that day she drew up a contract between the plaintiff and defendant, which was then and there signed by both of them, and that said contract was inadvertently dated April 10, 1903, while, as a matter of fact, it was made on April 10, 1905. The witness testified that said agreement was made in duplicate, and it was introduced in evidence as "defendant's exhibit 1," and is as follows:

"Apr. 10th, 1903.

"Over charges on freight to be looked up and if any difference it will be adjusted.

"It is to be looked up and see if any of Mr. Grill and Mr. Corollo's checks have been turned over to Mr. Quayle. If so, it is to be credited on this settlement.

"No. and price of old biddies to be looked up and oats to be considered, if any light can be thrown on it.

"This settlement has been made on the basis that the note of $ 2814.82 begins drawing interest on the first day of Sep., 1903.

"If there are any mistakes in this settlement and are afterwards proven, they are to be corrected.

"WM. QUAYLE,

"W. D. REAM."

She testified that the note of $ 605.34 was the outcome of the settlement made on April 10, 1905. S...