Tabler v. Hoult, 6918.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 6918.,6918. |
| Citation | 158 S.E. 782 |
| Parties | TABLER. v. HOULT. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions of "Valuable Consideration, " see Words and Phrases.]
Parol evidence to prove an agreement between the maker and the payee of a note that the former should not be re-quired 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 for new trial.
Ward Lanham and H. H. Rose, both of Fairmont, for plaintiff in error.
LITZ, P.
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 the 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 execution of the original note, that he would not be required to pay the obligation. The jury were instructed, in effect, to find for defendant if they should believe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lightner v. Lightner
...evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or detract from the terms of an unambiguous written instrument. Point 2, syllabus, Tabler v. Hoult, 110 W.Va. 542, 158 S.E. 782; West Virginia Mack Sales Company v. Brown, 139 W.Va. 667, 81 S.E.2d 103; Duty v. Sprinkle, 64 W.Va. 39, 60 S.E. 882. See als......
-
Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson
...detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.” Syllabus Point 1, Tabler v. Hoult, 110 W.Va. 542, 158 S.E. 782 (1931). 6. The formation of a contract with multiple clauses only requires consideration for the entire contract, and not for each individual clause......
-
Cardinal State Bank, Nat. Ass'n v. Crook
...Mountaineer Developers, Inc., 161 W.Va. 37, 239 S.E.2d 673 (1977). The parol evidence rule also applies to notes. See Tabler v. Hoult, 110 W.Va. 542, 158 S.E. 782 (1931) (refusing to admit parol evidence of an alleged agreement that the payee was not required to pay the note); Capital City ......
-
State ex rel. Saylor v. Wilkes, 32042.
...that the EDSI document is unenforceable because it lacks consideration. As this Court stated in syllabus point one of Tabler v. Hoult, 110 W.Va. 542, 158 S.E. 782 (1931), in contract formation "[a] valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing......