Tabler v. Hoult

• Decision Date: 26 May 1931
• Docket Number: (No. 6918)
• Citation: 110 W.Va. 542
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: W. R. Tabler, Receiver, etc. v. Golden M. Hoult

110 W.Va. 542

W. R. Tabler, Receiver, etc.

v.Golden M. Hoult

(No. 6918)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted May 20, 1931.

Decided May 26, 1931,

1. Contracts

A valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.

2. Evidence

Parol evidence to prove an agreement between the maker and the payee of a note that the former should not be required to pay it, is inadmissible under the rule inhibiting the introduction of parol evidence to contradict, vary, add to or detract from the terms of a written instrument.

Error to Circuit Court, Marion County.

Action by W. R. Tabler, as receiver of the Monongahela Bank of Fairmont, against Golden M. Hoult. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

Ward Lanham and H. H. Rose, for plaintiff in error.

Litz, President:

This is an action by "W. R. Tabler, as receiver of the Monongahela Bank of Fairmont, against Golden M. Hoult on a note for $20,000, dated July 20, 1928, signed by Hoult as maker and payable to the order of the bank six months after date. To the judgment of the circuit court entered upon a verdict in favor of defendant, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.

The defendant pleaded the general issue and also filed a special plea substantially averring that the note sued on had been given in continuance of a similar note executed by him January 20, 1926, to cover an indebtedness of Hugh F. Smith to the bank, and that he (Hoult), without consideration to himself, was induced by said Smith and Clarence D. Robinson, to execute the said original note solely for the accommodation of Smith and the benefit of the bank.

To secure the obligation assumed by Hoult, the bank retained certain shares of corporate stock belonging to Smith theretofore held by it as security for the Smith indebtedness. "With the approval of Hoult, this stock was later issued in his name. Still later, Robinson assigned to the bank the benefit of certain insurance on his life to further secure the debt. Robinson having died, the note was credited with $12,795.63, collected by the receiver from said insurance after the institution of this suit, leaving a balance at the time of the trial of $8,473.08.

The defendant adduced evidence tending to prove a verbal understanding between the officials of the bank and himself, at the time of or prior to the...