Court Opinion

ID: 9824875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:36:04.98055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:11.246659
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The general treatment in the foregoing opinion of the controlling question in the ease was in accord with its presentation on oral argument, and was thought sufficient for all practical purposes. Out of deference, however, to the earnest insistence of counsel for appellee, we consider a brief response, with more specific treatment, appropriate.
After all the important matter is the right of plaintiff to explain the meaning of the marginal entry “satisfied,” whether it was intended to indicate a full, payment of the debt, or only confined to the relinquishment of the property embraced in the mortgage. As it appears on the margin of the record, the word possesses an ambiguous meaning. And we think the authorities cited suffice to demonstrate the right of the plaintiff to show the intention of the parties, which was attempted by the replication, to which demurrer was sustained. As to this ruling, clearly no more specific treatment is necessary.
We have also stated that such an entry prima facie purports a satisfaction and payment of the indebtedness. Pleas 7 and 16, therefore, would, .upon their face, present á good defense, and properly to be met by replication as plaintiff attempted to do.
As to plea 10, it is therein expressly averred that the deed executed to plaintiff was accepted' in full payment, satisfaction, and discharge of the notes sued upon. This plea, of course, presents a defense to which a replication is unnecessary as the general issue joined thereon would sufficiently present the controverted question in the «ase.
It thus appears that the basic reversible error lies in the ruling on the replication.
What has been said should serve all purposes for another trial.
Let the application be overruled.
Application overruled.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and BOSTER, JJ., concur.