Court Opinion

ID: 9829154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:02:02.724901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.809901
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Our attention is called to a proposition in appellant’s brief based on several assignments of error as a group, which appellant insists was sufficient to present the contention made in one of those assignments, that the. trial court erred in failing to render judgment in appellant’s favor against the partnership firm of George W. Armstrong & Sons, for the full amount of principal, interest, and attorney’s'fees, claimed'to be due on the notes sued on. Since that firm filed no answer to the suit and no briefs in this court, we have concluded that any doubt of the sufficiency of the proposition referred to should be resolved in favor of appellant; and accordingly the judgment of the trial court will be and it is hereby so reformed as to decree a recovery by appellant as of date July 28, 1927, when the judgment of the trial court was rendered, against the appellee -partnership firm of George W. Armstrong & Sons, composed of George W. Armstrong, Allen J. Armstrong, and George W. Armstrong, Jr., for the- sum of $219,511.74, with interest thereon from July 28, 1927, at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum and that appellant have its execution thereon for said amount and costs of suit.' The sum so named is the amount of principal, interest, and attorneys’ fees, stipulated in the notes sued on; the judgment of the trial court against said firm for a sum less than that amount on account of the plea of usury by George W. Armstrong individually being erroneous.
In our original consideration- of the record we overlooked an objection made by appellant upon the trial in the lower court to issue No. 1, submitted to the jury and copied in our former opinion, on the ground that the issue “is on the weight of the evidence, in that it assumes and indicates to the jury as a fact that plaintiff (evidently meaning the bank) in receiving the notes mentioned did act as the agent for and in behalf of National Cattle Loan Company.”
Appellant’s briefs embody an assignment of error, and a proposition, thereunder, complaining of alleged error in that issue as pointed out in said objection. However, neither under the proposition nor in the motion for rehearing, has appellant pointed out any evidence to show that issue No. 1 was a controverted issue of fact. In other words, no evidence is pointed out tending to prove that the National Stockyards National Bank did not receive the notes mentioned as the agent for and in behalf of the National Cattle Loan Company. As pointed out in- our opinion on original hearing, defendants offered in evidence, a pleading filed by the National Cattle Loan Company, who is appellant here, in the chancery court of Adams county, Miss., containing. allegations to the effect that the National Stockyards National Bank, in taking *772the notes payable to itself, acted as the agent of appellant. If that evidence was uncontra-dicted, the court could assume it to be true in submitting the issue, hence there could be no reversible error by reason of the form in which issue No. 1 was submitted, and, since the burden is upon plaintiff to show such error, the assignment must be overruled.
As shown in our former opinion, the pleading filed by appellant in the chancery court in Adams county, Miss.,- expressly referred to and adopted as true the depositions of Wirt Wright as president of the National Stockyards National Bank and in the name of and for that bank. In view of that evidence, appellant is in no position to object to 'the introduction of that deposition on the ground that it was the deposition of the bank only and therefore hearsay and inadmissible against appellant.
With the correction above noted of our original opinion, the motions for rehearing and to certify are overruled.