Court Opinion

ID: 9824953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:47:04.220497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:16.687183
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The conclusion and judgment of this court, that appellee was not entitled to enforce contribution against his coindorser, is rested upon the evidence showing that, in the trade by appellee with Harvey, it was his purpose to pass to Harvey the corporate property as well as its entire capital stock unincumbered by the debt which appellee held against the corporation, thereby discharging the corporation from liability and effecting a discharge of appellant, its indorser on the note then held by appellee.
*346There is no principle better settled than that a discharge of the principal debtor from liability necessarily discharges his sureties or indorsers. This proposition is not controverted, and cannot be.
The testimony of appellee, quoted in his application and reproduced below, shows without dispute that it was the intention of the parties that Harvey was to take the corporation and its property discharged of its debts:
“I think Mr. Harvey was about as glad to trade as I was. Both of us had a sinking ship; he had a mortgage of $4,000.00 that he couldn’t handle, and I had a slcating rinlc that was a liability to me, and we agreed to swap even, and I take his debt of $4,000.00 and he to take my skating rink, and we were both happy. I think it is a gamble as to whether this land is worth anything over and above the $4,000.00 indebtedness. It was just a trading proposition, in which both of us were trading fictitious values in a way. I have never had a bona fide offer for that land.” (Italics supplied.)
No one can read this statement and reach any other conclusion than that appellee intended to trade the corporation and its holdings for the land and its burden.
Appellee, McGriff, was then tjie creditor of the corporation holding .the note indorsed by appellant and two others, and he had the right to discharge the corporation from liability, but he could not do this without discharging appellant, who was a mere indorser on the note, a secondary liability only, which falls with the primary liability.
The rule that the finding and conclusion of the trial court on testimony given ore tenus will be accorded the weight of the verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed unless contrary to the great weight of the evidence, is without application, where the evidence is without dispute and but one conclusion can be drawn from it. Bowling v. State, 204 Ala. 405, 85 So. 500; Marsh v. Elba Bank & Trust Co., 205 Ala. 425, 88 So. 423.
Application overruled.
ANDERSON, C. X, and SAYRE and THOMAS. .TX. concur.