Hall Music Co. v. Robinson

HICKMAN, C. J. Appellant sued appellee upon a promissory note for the principal sum of $720, bearing various credits. .The note was executed by appellee as surety for one W. L. Shaffer. The petition alleged that Shaffer was “hopelessly insolvent” and that his address was unknown. Appellee’s answer consisted of a general denial and a special plea, the substance of which was that on October 15, 1925, he paid appellant the sum of $52, which was the balance due ;and owing to the appellant in full satisfaction and discharge of the balance due upon the cause of action alleged in appellant’s petition, and that appellant accepted and received said payment from him in full satisfaction and discharge of its cause of action. The plea might be said to be one of payment and also of accord and satisfaction. The case was submitted to the jury on one issue, as follows: “Do you find that the payment of the said $52, as admitted by both parties, constituted payment in full of said note by the defendant Robinson?” To this issue the jury answered “Yes,” and judgment was rendered thereon that appellant take nothing. The only question presented for our decision is whether there was any evidence warranting the submission of this issue to the jury. In reply to a certified question in this case (1 S.W.[2d] 857), the Supreme Court answered that the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment was not presented by the assignment in appellant’s brief, the only question presented therein being whether there was any evidence of payment. We have carefully studied the .statement of facts to determine whether it contains any evidence that the note sued upon was paid in full by the $52 payment referred to in the issue. We need not consider the question of accord and satisfaction. The payment in cash of a part of a liquidated debt ‘which is due, and about which there is no dispute, does not operate as a bar to the recovery of the residue in the absence of [626] some new consideration. S. A. Pace Grocery v. Guynes (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 794; Panhandle Grain & Elevator Co. v. Dowlin (Tex. Civ. App.) 247 S. W. 873. The evidence of payment contained in the statement of facts is as follows: The note declared upon and introduced in evidence was an installment note payable $100 on April 21, 1925, and $50 the 15th of each and every month thereafter until fully paid. W. U. Shaffer was employed by appellant as a salesman. By his contract he was to receive a commission on all sales. When sales were made on time .no commission was due him until the purchase-money notes were collected, it being the duty of appellant to collect. Appellee signed the note in suit as surety, upon the request of Shaffer. Various payments were made upon the note by appellee. On September'25, 1925, appellee received a letter from appellant, as follows: “Tour note amount $50.00 and accrued interest amounting to $2.00, malting a total due of $52.00, matures October 15tli. Upon receipt of money order or bank draft for the amount due we will cancel and mail you the note. “Trusting to receive remittance covering amount due on or before date of maturity, we are, Yours very truly, Hall Music Company, by M. Wilson. “Please r’etura this notice with your remittance.” Upon receipt of this letter appellee sent to appellant his check for $52. It is conclusively disclosed in the evidence that the amount of the note remaining unpaid at that time far exceeded $52, and that the notice was intended to refer to the installment which would become due on October 15th rather than to the entire note. Viewing this situation as a whole, and in the light of the authorities, we conclude that this transaction does not constitute any evidence of payment. First State Bank of Amarillo v. Jones, 107 Tex. 623, 183 S. W. 874. It is contended by appellee that the condition of the books raised an issue of fact as to whether Shaffer was entitled to sufficient credits to pay this note in full. The record as it comes to us does not support this theory. W. J. Young, who had become manager after many of the entries were made on the books, did testify on cross-examination that there appeared to be an erasure' in the books, but the testimony of M. Wilson, 'the bookkeeper, clearly accounts for each entry on the books and clearly shows that Shaffer has received credit for every sale made by him upon which collections were made. The deposition of Shaffer offered in evidence by appellee throws no light upon the subject, as he had no information as to how much credit was due him. The burden was, upon appellee to' establish his plea of payment, and in order to be entitled to have that issue submitted, the testimony should make out a prima facie case of payment. It is our opinion that he failed to offer any evidence of probative force -raising the issue of payment, and the judgment of the trial court should therefore be reversed and judgment here rendered for appellant. It is so ordered. Reversed and rendered.