Reynolds v. Morgan

• Decision Date: 08 May 1925
• Docket Number: 18998.
• Citation: 235 P. 800,134 Wash. 358
• Parties: REYNOLDS et al. v. MORGAN et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

235 P. 800

134 Wash. 358

REYNOLDS et al. v. MORGAN et al.

No. 18998.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 8, 1925

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Benton County; Truax, Judge.

Action by H. P. Reynolds and another against Charles E. Morgan and others. Judgment for plaintiffs notwithstanding the verdict and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to enter judgment on verdict.

McGregor & Frestoe, of Prosser, for appellants.

C. H Steffen, of Seattle, and Andrew Brown, of Prosser, for respondents.

HOLCOMB J.

This case was submitted to the jury by the trial judge upon issues arising out of the affirmative answer and defense to a suit upon a promissory note of appellants upon very appropriate instructions, which were not objected or excepted to by respondents; respondents only objecting and excepting to the submission of the case to the jury at all. The jury, which was the second jury finding in favor of appellants upon the same issues, made special findings upon the issues of fraud raised by appellants, in their favor. Notwithstanding the findings of the jury, the court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of respondents, upon which this appeal is based.

The right of respondents to recover in this action is based upon the allegation that they are the holders in due course in good faith and for value of the note sued upon, without notice of any infirmities. The good faith of the transaction, notice of the fraud, lack of consideration and failure of consideration were all put in issue by appellants, and evidence was introduced which went to the jury to sustain the contention of appellants. The jury, besides finding for appellants, specially found that the note was procured from respondents by fraud, of which respondents had notice, or were put upon their inquiry, and that they did not acquire the note for a valuable consideration in due course.

There were facts and strong inferences to sustain these special findings.

Since the evidence was conflicting upon the issues involved, and there were facts and circumstances upon which the minds of reasonable men might differ, it cannot be said that there was no evidence nor reasonable inference sustaining the verdict of the jury.

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict in such a case should only be granted by the trial court where it can say as a matter of law that there is no evidence or reasonable inference...