85 W. Va. 155 | W. Va. | 1919
The plaintiff, W. S. Ingles, recovered a judgment against Harmel E. Stealey, defendant, in the Intermediate Court of Marion County in an action on a note, executed by defendant to Robert E. Hellem and endorsed by said Hellem to the plaintiff, and on refusal of a writ of error by the Circuit Court of said county, one was awarded by this Court. The defenses to the action are, that the note was not the property of plaintiff but belonged to the estate of the payee, who died before the institution of this- action, and offsets amounting to more than the note.
The note is the first one of a series of four notes of $500 each executed by the defendant to said Hellem, dated May 11th, 1911, payable in one, two, three, and four years respectively, and represent the purchase price of an apartment house and lot in Mannington, West Virginia, known as the Buffalo Street property, purchased from said Hellem by the defendant. Hellem was a bachelor and made his home with plaintiff, his wife and his mother, during most of the time from 1904 to the 15th of October, 1912. Both plaintiff and defendant are nephews of Hellem. Plaintiff claims the note was turned over to him in part payment of a bill which he claims his uncle owed him for
It is not plaintiff’s contention that his uncle assigned him
It is assigned as error that the court improperly permitted plaintiff’s counsel, on cross-examination, to ask defendant how he came in possession of the other three notes of the series and whether or not he had paid them, and also erred in permitting him to be questioned about certain other lots which he had gotten
The evidence respecting the three other notes was proper for the purpose of showing the circumstances under which defendant claimed title to them, and not to the particular note in suit, and as a reason why he desired to set off against the first note rather than against some of the others. In view of all the circumstances the jury had a right to consider whether or not defendant was a bona fide owner of the other three notes, and if they believed he was not, they might consider his set-offs as properly applicable to them rather than to the note in suit. Plaintiff and his wife testify that Hellem left their house the 15 th of October, 1912, and that he told plaintiff to keep the note and apply it on his board bill, that he had no money with which to pay him then. But defendant swears that, while Hellem was still staying with plaintiff, he was passing one day and saw his uncle “Bob” as he calls him, and stopped and talked with him, and told him he had paid some of his debts, and his uncle re plied, “that is all right, I will get the note and give you credit.” But defendant does not remember when this was, but thinks it was about Hovember, 1911. It will be remembered that it was long after this when defendant admits he paid $25 to plaintiff for his uncle. So that evidently he must be mistaken as to the time. He is also just as indefinite and uncertain as to the time he made the arrangement with his uncle whereby he agreed to pay his debts. It is not likely he would be paying his uncle’s debts when he knew his own note had been placed in plaintiff’s hands for collection from him, and he does testify that the note was placed in plaintiff’s hands for collection. Defendant denied that plaintiff at any time had ever asked him to pay the note, or had ever recognized his liability thereon to plaintiff, and m cross-examination he was asked, over his objection and to ¡vhich he excepted, if be had not offered to convey to plaintiff a. lot in Clayton Addition in payment of the debt, and this is as
The court gave one instruction for the plaintiff and refused to give one for defendant, and this also is assigned as error. We have carefully considered these instructions and find no error in the court’s rulings thereon. We affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.