Court Opinion

ID: 9832651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:05:05.570913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:49.916519
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The only assignment urged for reversal was that, the trial court erred in refusing to admit in evidence certain checks drawn by appellee and paid by the appellant, that evidenced, and in the aggregate amounted to, the sum for which plaintiff sought judgment and foreclosure.
We overruled the assignment because neither the existence nor the amount of the indebtedness claimed by appellant was controverted, hence, the error of the court, if any, in excluding the checks was harmless.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant challenges the. accuracy of our statement in the original opinion, to the effect that, there was no controversy in the court below, either as to the existence or the amount of appellant’s claim, the contention being that, the statement was incorrect, because the admission of counsel for appellee that the amount claimed to have been paid by appellant was not disputed, was made, not in the presence or hearing of the jury, but in a colloquy between court and counsel, in which the admissibility of the checks was under consideration, the argument made being that, the amount paid by appellant was a material fact, bearing upon the issue of settlement.
 Appellee plead and testified that, he conveyed to appellant certain real estate, which was accepted in full payment and settlement of the amount owing, but the testimonjr of appellee in this respect was categorically denied by the appellant. We readily agree with counsel for appellant that the amount of indebtedness involved was a material fact for the consideration of the jury in passing upon the issue of settlement, and in determining the conflict of evidence on that issue, and if the fact had not been before the jury otherwise, the assignment, in our opinion, would present error; however, on cross-examination, Mr. Glover, in answer to a question asked by counsel for appel-lee, as to the amount he claimed against appellee, stated, “About twenty-four thousand and a half,” meaning, of course, about $24,500, Continuing the cross-examination, the witness answered that the amount of his claim against appellee was $24,959.04, being precisely the amount sued for, with *318interest. So we do not think it can correctly be said that thp amount of appellant’s claim against appellee was not properly before the jury. Besides, in the colloquy between counsel and the court, with reference to the admissibility of the checks, at the time appellee’s counsel stated that there was no difference or dispute as to the amount of money appellant furnished appellee, the question of limitation, alone, was the burden of the discussion, appellee contending that, the two years’ statute applied; appellant contending that the cause of action was upon written instruments and that the four years’ statute applied, and had no reference to the existence, whether or not, or the amount of appellant’s claim against appellee. The colloquy appears in the statement of facts, beginning at page 43 and extending to and including page 47.' We therefore overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing.