Morton v. Selix

Idaho Supreme Court

Morton v. Selix

281 P. 469, 48 Idaho 276, 1929 Ida. LEXIS 53

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1929

DocketNo. 5305.

StatusPublished

This text of 281 P. 469 (Morton v. Selix) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morton v. Selix, 281 P. 469, 48 Idaho 276, 1929 Ida. LEXIS 53 (Idaho 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BUDGE, C. J.

— Respondent purchased an automobile from appellant, and later some tires, for the purchase price of which he signed and delivered to appellant two promissory notes. After several instalments had been paid on the automobile note respondent executed and delivered to appellant a new note, thought by the parties to cover an amount' still due on the original note given in payment for the automobile, and received from respondent the original note. This action was subsequently instituted by appellant to recover upon the note given for the tires and the one covering the alleged unpaid balance on the original note cover- *278 mg the purchase price of the automobile. Respondent defended on the ground that he had paid appellant more than the full amounts of both notes sued upon, and in a cross-action prayed for the recovery of the amount claimed to have been overpaid appellant. The cause was tried to the court and jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of respondent. Motion for new trial was denied, and the appeal is from the order denying the motion for new trial and the judgment entered on the verdict.

The principal dispute between the parties as aired before the jury was whether a payment of $250 indorsed on the back of the automobile note actually was made to appellant and the indorsement appeared on the instrument at the time it was relinquished to respondent, and whether a receipt for $40 held by respondent and claimed to have been signed by appellant represented a payment of that amount. The note with the indorsement of $250 “paid” thereon, and the receipt in question, were placed in evidence and the matter of the payment of the amounts represented thereby presented to the jury upon the conflicting testimony of appellant and respondent in regard thereto, as well as the question of whether interest was chargeable on the original note at the rate of ten per cent or otherwise. The jury believed the contention of respondent in all respects, and we are precluded on appeal from setting aside the verdict based upon substantial, though conflicting, evidence.

The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, and it follows from what has been said that the judgment must be affirmed and it is so ordered. Costs to respondent.

Givens, T. Bailey Lee, Wm. E. Lee and Yarian, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BUDGE, C. J.

— Respondent purchased an automobile from appellant, and later some tires, for the purchase price of which he signed and delivered to appellant two promissory notes. After several instalments had been paid on the automobile note respondent executed and delivered to appellant a new note, thought by the parties to cover an amount' still due on the original note given in payment for the automobile, and received from respondent the original note. This action was subsequently instituted by appellant to recover upon the note given for the tires and the one covering the alleged unpaid balance on the original note cover- *278 mg the purchase price of the automobile. Respondent defended on the ground that he had paid appellant more than the full amounts of both notes sued upon, and in a cross-action prayed for the recovery of the amount claimed to have been overpaid appellant. The cause was tried to the court and jury, and a verdict was returned in favor of respondent. Motion for new trial was denied, and the appeal is from the order denying the motion for new trial and the judgment entered on the verdict.

The principal dispute between the parties as aired before the jury was whether a payment of $250 indorsed on the back of the automobile note actually was made to appellant and the indorsement appeared on the instrument at the time it was relinquished to respondent, and whether a receipt for $40 held by respondent and claimed to have been signed by appellant represented a payment of that amount. The note with the indorsement of $250 “paid” thereon, and the receipt in question, were placed in evidence and the matter of the payment of the amounts represented thereby presented to the jury upon the conflicting testimony of appellant and respondent in regard thereto, as well as the question of whether interest was chargeable on the original note at the rate of ten per cent or otherwise. The jury believed the contention of respondent in all respects, and we are precluded on appeal from setting aside the verdict based upon substantial, though conflicting, evidence.

The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, and it follows from what has been said that the judgment must be affirmed and it is so ordered. Costs to respondent.

Givens, T. Bailey Lee, Wm. E. Lee and Yarian, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 P. 469, 48 Idaho 276, 1929 Ida. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-selix-idaho-1929.