Court Opinion

ID: 9830878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:34:57.798064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:27.958805
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Since we pretermitted a discussion of the issues of bankruptcy, we overrule appellant’s request for fact findings on that issue. We also overrule the request to find that certain stocks listed in the original opinion were held as collateral to secure certain indebtedness; these stocks were listed as a part of Mr. Edson’s assets, and the indebtedness which they secured was listed among his liabilities; therefore, the requested findings are immaterial on the issue of Mr. Edson’s solvency. The requested findings as to the value of certain stocks listed in the -original opinion, at dates subsequent to the execution of the deed in issue and the date it was filed for record, and subsequent to the dates on which the values were fixed as listed in the original opinion, are refused; this testimony was all before the court; it is well known that the values of stocks in many *261instances were wiped out within a few months during the years of ’31-’33. The values of the stocks listed in the original opinion had support in the testimony as of the dates therein reflected; so, as an attack on the court’s findings of fact, on the issue of the values of these stocks, it is immaterial that when they were sold at forced sale in 1932-1933, they brought sums far below the amounts listed in the statement brought forward in the original opinion. We overrule the request to find that the indebtedness against the property in issue was paid with community funds; the evidence supports the court’s conclusion that this indebtedness was paid “out of the separate estate of Eleanor W. Ed-son.” The amount of Mr. Edson’s liabilities, as of the date the deed in issue was executed and recorded, is reflected in the original opinion; therefore, appellant’s requested findings on this point are overruled.
On rehearing appellant insists that the court erred in receiving in evidence the financial statements made by E. G. Edson on December 31, 1930, and February 1, 1932. This case was tried to the court without -a jury. After these statements were received, the witnesses, in testifying in relation thereto, simply used them as memoranda upon which to base their estimate of Mr. Edson’s assets and their value. If the financial statements were not admissible as original evidence, certainly the court did not err in permitting the witnesses to use them, as memoranda for the basis of their testimony.
Appellant makes the following contention: “We call the Court’s attention to the fact that the statement was dated February 1, 1932, and on March 10, 1932, which is thirtyreight days from the date of the statement, Wilson Holding Company stock sold at forced sale for $20.00’ per share. Again sixty days after that date it sold for $20.00 per share. Again sixty days from the date of the statement it sold for $30.00 per share.” The point thus made was simply on tlje weight of the testimony; the fact that the Wilson Holding Company stock, on the dates mentioned, sold at $20 per share, did not as a matter of law control its value on the dates when the deed was executed and recorded.
We pretermitted discussion of the issues on bankruptcy, therefore appellant’s assignments on this issue are overruled.
Appellant advances the following proposition : “The Court should note that the only evidence offered by Mrs. Edson with reference to property owned by Edson was the financial statement of February 1, 1932, and his testimony that he owned this property on October 13, 1931. There is no testimony regarding the value of the properties owned as of those dates.”
In answer to this contention, we simply quote appellant’s 21st proposition: “The court (trial court) erred in admitting in evidence, over objection of plaintiff, the testimony of defendant, E. G. Edson, on direct examination, to the effect that the items listed as assets in his statement dated December 31, 1930, were of the reasonable market value set opposite such items in said statement as of that date.”
23rd proposition: “The court (trial court) erred in admitting in evidence, over objection of plaintiff, the testimony of defendant, E. G. Edson, on direct examination, to the effect that he owned assets listed in his statement on February 1st, 1932, as of that date.”
24th proposition: “The court (trial court) erred in admitting in evidence, over objection of plaintiff, the testimony of defendant, E. G. Edson, on direct examination, to the effect that the items listed as stocks and bonds in his statement of February 1st, 1932, reflected the reasonable cash value set opposite such items in such statement as of that date.”
25th proposition: “The court (trial court) erred in admitting in evidence over objection of plaintiff, the testimony of defendant, E. G. Edson, on direct examination, to the effect that the items listed as liabilities in his statement dated February 1st, 1932, reflected all of his liabilities as of the date of said statement.”
26th proposition: “The court (trial court) erred in admitting in evidence, over objection of plaintiff, the testimony of defendant, E. G. Edson, on direct examination to the effect that the items of real estate in his statement of February 1, 1932, reflected the reasonable market value set opposite such items in said statement as of that date.”
These propositions clearly sustain our conclusion that the court had before it affirmative testimony’ as to the value of the stocks listed in the original opinion on the dates therein set out. We have carefully considered appellant’s assignments against this testimony, and they are overruled.
*262All assignments to the effect that the court’s conclusions of fact, as brought' forward in the original opinion, are against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the testimony, are overruled. '
On original submission, as on this rehearing, the court carefully reviewed appellant’s propositions of error on all issues discussed.
The motion for additional fact findings is granted to the extent set out herein, and in all other respects refused. The motion for rehearing is overruled.