Olds v. Traders Bank of Kansas City

Opinion of me court by Beauchamp, J.: The contention of the plaintiffs in error in the court below as disclosed by the record, was that they signed the note sued on as officers and directors of. the Granite Brick Company, a corporation; that John B. Jones secured a loan in the sum of $2,500 from his w-ife, Etna M. Jones, for the Granite Brick Company; and that in so doing he was acting as the agent of his wife; that he, as such agent, had full knowledge of the fact that the loan was so negotiated by the Granite Brick Company, and that when the plaintiffs- *476 in error signed tbe same it was only intended tbat they ■should bind the corporation. Evidence was introduced and heard by the court upon all of these questions, and the court found and rendered judgment for the defendant in error. There' was evidence supporting the findings of the court, and this court has repeatedly held, that the finding of the trial court upon a controverted question of fact will not be disturbed by this court where there is competent evidence to reasonably support such a finding of fact. Moore v. Bevis, 9 Okla. 672; Gillett & Libbey et al. v. Murphy, Carrol & Brough, 7 Okla. 91; Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Kelley et al. 5 Okla. 118; Light v. Canadian County Bank, 2 Okla. 543; The National Bank of Guthrie v. Earl, 2 Okla. 617; Darlington-Miller Lumber Co. v. Lobsitz, 4 Okla. 355; Tootle et al. v. Brown, 4 Okla. 612. This court will not reverse-findings of fact made by a ■district court because of the insufficiency of the evidence upon which such finding is based, provided the evidence rea-sonabfy tends to support its finding; and when the evidence has been produced below upon all the points included in the findings of fact made by the trial court, if such evidence reasonably tends to support the findings, such findings of fact will not be disturbed by this court; and the rule upon this ■subject is the same when the case is submitted to the court below without a jury, as when a jury is impanelled to try the cause. Counsel for plaintiffs in error direct our attention to the case of Janes v. Citizens Bank, 9 Okla. 546. In that case it was held that: “Where anything appears on the face of the instrument *477 which suggests a doubt or ambiguity as to the party bound, or the character in which any of the persons who signed the instrument acted, parol testimony is admissible as between the original parties, for the purpose of showing the true intent and meaning of the parties.” In that ease the trial court declined to consider oral testimony to show that it was the intent of the parties to bind the corporation, and not to bind the defendants individually. In this ease the trial court admitted ánd considered oral testimony, both in support of and against the issue raised by plaintiffs in error in their answer. Upon an examination of the record, we find that there was competent evidence sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court. The judgment of the district court of Greer county is therefore affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs in error. Gillette, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting ; all the other Justices concurring.