Court Opinion

ID: 9830964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:39:44.045203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.710625
License: Public Domain

On the Merits.
Maxwell brought this suit in a justice court of Jefferson county against N. D. Dorizas and J. M. McCane to recover on seven notes amounting to $130. The notes sued on were numbered 2 to 8, six for $20 each, and the last for $10. They were to be paid one each month until paid. They provided for interest from date until paid at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum, and also for 10 per cent, attorney’s fees if collected by suit. The notes ■ were given by Dorizas to Maxwell in part payment for a filling station lease and certain merchandise, consisting of oils, grease, gasoline, and automobile supplies. Subsequent to the execution of the notes, Dorizas tranferred the filling station lease and supplies to J. M. McCane, and Dorizas defended on the ground that McCane had assumed the payment of the note. In the justice court judgment by default was for Maxwell against Dorizas and McCane. McCane carried the ease to the county court at law by certiorari. In the county court at law McCane filed answer of general demurrer, general denial, and sworn plea of non est factum as to the notes, and that he had never ratified, confirmed, or assumed the payment of same. Trial was had to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of Maxwell against Dorizas, and that Maxwell take nothing as to McCane. This appeal is from that judgment.
The trial court filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law. Among other things, the court found that Dorizas sold the filling station to McCane, that the sale was verbal, there being no bill of sale or transfer, and that McCane did not sign the notes in question, and that there was no instrument in writing of any nature showing the assump. tion of the payment of said notes by McCane. On these findings the court concluded that liability against McCane was not shown, and rendered judgment accordingly.
Appellant’s first assignment of error is to the effect that the court erred in refusing to consider certain parol testimony to the. effect that McCane agreed to pay off and satisfy the notes. The assignment is overruled. If the court had considered the evidence and then rendered judgment against McCane, based upon said evidence, it would have been error. Any such promise of McCane. if made, would have been to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, not in writing, and therefore in contravention of article 3995, R. S. 1925. What we have said disposes of appellant’s second and last assignment of error. The judgment should in all things be affirmed; and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.