Wright v. Goins

Decision Date13 March 1928
Docket Number6046.
Citation142 S.E. 438,105 W.Va. 332
PartiesWRIGHT v. GOINS et al.
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

Submitted March 6, 1928.

Syllabus by the Court.

A decree based on conflicting and doubtful evidence will not be disturbed by the appellate court except for clear and palpable error.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mingo County.

Suit by Allie Wright against P. A. Goins, administrator of the estate of Charles Fullen, deceased, and others. From a decree for plaintiff, the named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Stafford & Copley, of Williamson, for appellant.

B. L Damron, of Williamson, for appellee.

MILLER P.

From a decree in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to the prayer of her bill, the defendant P. A. Goins, administrator of the personal estate of Charles Fullen, prosecutes the present appeal.

Under date of June 26, 1924, the defendant S. C. Williams executed his negotiable note, payable one year after date, to Charles Fullen and Allie Wright, for the sum of $600. to secure the payment of the note, Williams, his wife joining therein executed a deed of trust, of even date with the note, which was acknowledged July 28, 1924, and admitted to record March 2, 1925. Fullen died January 12, 1925. A dispute having arisen between plaintiff and the administrator as to who actually loaned the money to Williams, he deposited with the defendant, the National Bank of Commerce of Williamson, his certified check for the sum represented by the note, with interest, to be delivered to the payees or either of them, upon receipt of the note and a proper release of the deed of trust. Both parties were claiming the whole of the $600, and each refused to execute a release unless the money was paid to him or her. The plaintiff filed her bill praying that the money in the hands of the bank be decreed to her. The administrator by his cross-bill answer asked for a decree of the money to him.

Plaintiff claims that she made the loan to Williams from her own money. She testified that he came to her home, where Fullen roomed, and told her that he would lose his home unless she or Fullen loaned him $600; that she told him she would let him know about a loan when Fullen came home; that later he returned when Fullen was there, and that Fullen refused to make the loan "couldn't let him have the money-not a dime"; that she then told him she would loan him the money if his property was worth enough to secure the loan. She says she had a lawyer look into the property and prepare a deed of trust, and gave Williams $600 in cash, her own money. Her testimony is substantially corroborated by Williams. He says Fullen refused to let him have the money, and that plaintiff loaned him the $600-gave it to him in cash. He says that the reason the note and deed of trust were made to secure both plaintiff and Fullen was because Mrs. Williams and plaintiff were not on good terms and it was thought best to connect Fullen's name with the loan.

To support his claim to the money, the administrator relies mainly on two alleged facts in evidence. A bookkeeper of the bank where Fullen did his banking business testified that on June 27th, the day following the date of the note Fullen's account was charged with an item of $600. To...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT