Title: RANDLES v. GULLY
Citation: 128 Okla. 220, 1927 OK 494, 262 P. 20 1
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 20, 1927

RANDLES v. GULLY Annotate this Case RANDLES v. GULLY 1927 OK 494 262 P. 201 128 Okla. 220 Case Number: 17827 Decided: 12/20/1927 Supreme Court of Oklahoma RANDLES, Adm'x, v. GULLY. Syllabus ¶0 Bills and Notes--Right of Purchaser of Note Made Subject to Written Contract Referred to in Indorsement. The defendant sold the plaintiff a negotiable promissory note which was indorsed as follows: "This indorsement is made subject to all the conditions of the separate contract in writing of which this note is a part of the same transaction." Held, that the plaintiff took the note subject to the conditions of the separate written contract. Error from District Court, Beaver County; Arthur G. Sutton, Judge. Action by E. I. Gully against Lula Randles, administratrix of estate of W. T. Randles, deceased, and O. J. Budd. Judgment for plaintiff, and the administratrix brings error. Reversed and remanded for new trial. R. H. Loofbourrow and Sawyer & King, for plaintiff in error. Ross Rizley, for defendant in error. HEFNER, J. ¶1 E. I. Gully, as plaintiff, brought suit in the district court of Beaver county against O. J. Budd and Lula Randles, as administratrix of the estate of W. T. Randles, as defendants. The suit was based upon a promissory note executed by the defendant Budd in favor of W. T. Randles, who sold the note to the plaintiff. The parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the trial court. ¶2 On October 18, 1917, the defendant O. J. Budd delivered his promissory note to W. T. Randles in the sum of $ 1,500, due January 1, 1919. As a part of the same transaction, the parties executed a contract for the sale by Randles to Budd of a threshing machine. A portion of the written contract is as follows: "That the note shall be paid by 40 per cent. of the gross earnings of said machine, and any time that the machine will not make expenses he has the privilege of bringing in the machine." ¶3 On June 1, 1918, the plaintiff purchased said note, and, the written indorsement on the back of the note is as follows: "This indorsement is made subject to all the conditions of the separate contract in writing of which this note is a part of the same transaction. "W. T. Randles. Gully's Garage, by E. I. Gully." ¶4 The plaintiff introduced the note sued on, and it was admitted that he became the owner thereof before the final due date. The defendant offered in evidence the written contract executed at the same time the note was executed. This is all the evidence that was introduced.