Court Opinion

ID: 9833040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:23:39.570569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:58.339374
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It was stated in the original opinion that notes 8, 9, and 10 were paid on November 1, 1932, and that no part of any of the notes involved had been paid when Beesley purchased the 102 acres involved, ,on July 13, 1931. In his motion for rehearing appellant bitterly complains of both findings, contending that they have no sort of foundation in the record. There is no affirmative original evidence in the record of the dates of payments made upon said notes, but it is recited in the transfer of notes 1 to 7 inclusive, from the original payee to appellee, that “note numbered 7 has a principal credit of $2110.15, as of February 8, 1931,” whereas, appellant did not purchase the 102 acres until February 13, 1931. And it was recited in the release of notes 8, 9, and 10 by said payee, that said notes “have been fully paid,” said release having been executed on November 1, 1932, nearly a year and a half after ap'pellant purchased the 102 acres. We were therefore in error in stating in the original opinion that said partial payment had not been made on note 7 when appellant purchased the 102 acres. We see no reason, howgver, why the statement in the original opinion, that notes 8, 9, and 10 were not paid until November" 1, 1932, should be' recalled. Certainly that is true so far as the record shows to the contrary, and in the absence of affirmative original evidence of the date of such payment, we see no reason' why we should not assume that payment was made at the time the notes were released by’ the holder. In any event, we think these' matters are immaterial to the decision. There is no contention, nor anything in the record to support apy assumption, that appellant paid any part of said notes, or that any part of them was paid at the time ap-' pellant purchased the 102 acres, or th.at it was intended by any of the parties that such' payments should inure to the benefit’ of ap-' pellant, who was a stranger to all the transactions between mortgagor and mortgagee. If appellant was entitled to any benefit from the payment of the notes, he should have alleged and proved the facts upon which he relied. In the absence of such showing, the whole record, both of law and facts, negatives the contention of appellant that he was entitled to any of those benefits. All the conveyances between the parties show that in order to entitle the mortgagor or his assigns to partial releases it was incumbent upon him to pay the specified amount chargeable to the particular parcel desired, and be released accordingly.
It is not contended, and the record negatives the facts, that appellant paid any sum for that specific purpose, or any other purpose, or that he paid anything to anybody; or that anybody paid any amount for his benefit. Wherefore, neither he, nor any one for him, earned the release for which he sues in this case.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing will be overruled.