VILES v. JACKSON

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 14,644.

Attorney(S)

EDMOND L. VILES, FRANCES N. VILES, Pro se. No appearance for defendant in error.

Judges

Benjamin C. Hilliard

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case is an action on a promissory note brought by the plaintiff, suing as trustee in bankruptcy for the failed holder of the note. The defendants answered with multiple defenses, including lack of consideration, failure to credit chattels taken by replevin, pending litigation on the same cause, ambiguity and invalidity of the note. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed. The appeal also involved issues concerning the adequacy and attestation of the bill of exceptions submitted by the defendants.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the bill of exceptions submitted by the defendants was properly attested and sufficient for appellate review.
Whether a duly executed promissory note imports consideration in the absence of contrary evidence.
Whether unsupported defenses to an action on a promissory note are sufficient to defeat recovery.
Whether defendants are entitled to credit for chattels taken by replevin without evidence of their value.
Whether the promissory note was ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible, or void under applicable statutes.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

The defendants alleged that they had not received consideration for the promissory note.
They claimed they were not credited for chattels taken by replevin related to the note.
They argued that another action was pending between the same parties on the same cause.
They asserted that the promissory note was ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible, and too vague to be understood.
They contended that the note was void and uncollectible under the statutes on its face.
The defendants attempted to submit a bill of exceptions which was refused by the trial judge as deficient and improperly attested.

Plaintiff's Arguments

The plaintiff denied all defenses except the credit for chattels taken by replevin.
The plaintiff explained that the replevin action was dismissed by agreement, the chattels were sold to defendants for $110 with credit given on the note, and that defendants gave a new note and chattel mortgage for the purchase.
The plaintiff objected to the bill of exceptions as deficient and improperly attested.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Wilson v. Kellerd, 189 N.Y.S. 161	Only evidence as to the value of chattels taken in replevin can support a judgment crediting defendants for their value.	The court applied this principle to reject defendants’ claim for credit based solely on the verified complaint’s stated value without evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the procedural issue concerning the bill of exceptions. The trial judge refused to attest the bill because it was deficient and incomplete. The defendants failed to timely submit a corrected bill despite an extension. Their attempt to validate the bill by affidavit under the procedural code was insufficient because the affidavits lacked formal sufficiency and did not meet statutory requirements. The court found the trial judge justified in refusing to attest the bill.

On the substantive merits, the court held that the promissory note, being duly executed, imported consideration, and since no evidence contradicted this, the defense of no consideration failed. Other defenses, including the claim of ambiguity and statutory invalidity of the note, were unsupported by evidence and thus unavailing. Regarding the replevin-related credit, the court emphasized that without evidence of the chattels’ value, defendants were not entitled to credit. The note itself was deemed plain and understandable, and no law rendered it void. Therefore, the judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court. The direct effect is that the plaintiff’s recovery on the promissory note stands, and the defendants’ defenses are rejected due to lack of evidence. No new legal precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing principles regarding the sufficiency of bills of exceptions, the presumption of consideration in promissory notes, and the necessity of evidentiary support for defenses and credits in replevin contexts.

Show full summary ...

VILES ET AL. v. JACKSON, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR COLLATERAL BANKERS, INC.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Bill of Exceptions. Where a party presents a bill of exceptions which clearly is deficient, the trial judge is justified in refusing to attest it; and while one may proceed under section 420 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have his bill verified by affidavit, he should comply with its provisions relating to such procedure.

2. BILLS AND NOTES — Promissory Notes — Consideration. A duly executed promissory note imports consideration, and no evidence to the contrary being introduced, a defensive allegation of no consideration, fails.

3. Promissory Notes — Defenses. Defenses to an action on a promissory note which are unsupported by evidence are unavailing.

4. REPLEVIN — Value of Property. Only on evidence as to the value of property taken in replevin is there basis for judgment.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HILLIARD delivered the opinion of the court.Page 69

AN action on a promissory note. Judgment in the sum apparently due, with costs, was given.

Plaintiff at suit sued as trustee in bankruptcy of the failed holder of the note. By amended answer defendants answered: (1) That they had not received consideration for the note; (2) that they had not received credit for chattels taken by replevin on account of the note; (3) that there was another action pending between the same parties on the same cause; (4) that the promissory note is ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible, and too vague to be understood; (5) that on its face the note shows it is void and uncollectible under the statutes. Plaintiff replied in denial of all defenses except the second one, as to which he alleged that at one time, in his official capacity, as here, he had brought a replevin action against defendants to recover the chattels given to secure the note in suit, and had there alleged the chattels to be of value in the sum alleged by defendants, but that by agreement between the parties there the action was dismissed, the plaintiff sold the chattels involved to defendants for $110.00, in which sum, less costs, defendants were credited on the note here; and that in payment of their purchase of the chattels defendants gave a new note and chattel mortgage on the same property.

The condition of the purported bill of exceptions challenges our attention. On objection by plaintiff, the trial judge refused to allow and sign the bill, but gave plaintiffs in error "twenty days to submit a new bill of exceptions showing actual testimony given." Plaintiffs in error did not avail themselves of the extended time granted by the court and submit a new bill. Instead, they resorted to the Code of Civil Procedure, section 420, which provides: "In case * * * any judge shall neglect or refuse to allow and sign such bill of exceptions, it shall be lawful for either party excepting to the judgment, or his attorney, to attach to his bill of exceptions the affidavit of two or more persons (at least one of whom shall be other than the party so excepting or his attorney) who were present when such exceptions were taken stating that such bill of exceptions is true and correct; and when such bill of exceptions is so * * * attested and proved by affidavit, it shall thereupon be filed by the clerk, and shall become a part of the record of such cause;" etc. Plaintiffs in error supported the bill originally tendered and disallowed, as we have seen, by their own affidavits, of doubtful formal sufficiency, and by an affidavit of one not "excepting" to the judgment, but who did not say he was present when the exceptions were taken, only stating that the bill "is true and correct, in substance, as to my testimony given at the trial." We cannot think the so-called bill of exceptions is sufficiently attested. It seems pertinent to observe that plaintiffs in error did not secure from the court reporter the draft of bill of exceptions which they tendered, but submitted one of their own production. Of course, litigants may not properly be precluded from pursuing the course attempted, but they proceed so at no little risk, as evidenced here. It is fair to add that we think the trial judge was justified in declining to attest the bill submitted. Its incompleteness is apparent.

[2, 3] On the record proper, affirmance of the judgment is imperative. The note imports consideration ('35 C. S. A., c. 112, § 24), and since there was no evidence to the contrary, point one of the answer fails. Points two and three are in like category — not proved. The note is plain and understandable, and not unusual as to form. It was in the principal sum of $706.40, and bore interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum. We are not advised of any law that makes such a note "void and uncollectible under the statutes." Thus points four and five of the answer are unavailing.

It appears that in an earlier proceeding — replevin by defendant in error to recover possession of chattels mortgaged by plaintiffs in error to secure the note here — the verified complaint stated the value of the chattels to be $750. Plaintiffs in error contend that regardless of the absence of evidence as to the value of the goods involved there — and there was none — they should be credited with that sum. That is not the law. Only on evidence as to value of chattels taken in replevin, is there basis for judgment. Code of Civil Procedure, § 247. See Wilson v. Kellerd, 189 N. Y. S. 161. Let the judgment be affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BAKKE and MR. JUSTICE BURKE concur.