Idaho Supreme Court, 1943

McCarty v. Sauer

Idaho Supreme Court · Decided March 25, 1943 · No. 7055. · Dunlap, Ailshie, Givens, Sutton, Budge, Holden

136 P.2d 742; 64 Idaho 748; 1943 Ida. LEXIS 38 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

A.A. Merrill, L.H. Merrill, and Merrill Merrill for appellants. "The debtor or payer may direct the application of the payments on a contract." ( Shull v. Lawrence , 32 Idaho 527 ; Smith v. Thomas , 42 Idaho 375 , 245 P. 399 . 30 Cyc. 1237; Powell v. State , 4 So. 719.) It is the duty of the court to make findings upon each and every material issue arising upon the pleading. ( Berlin Machine Works v. Dehlban , 29 Idaho 494 ; Reno v. Richard , 32 Idaho 1 , 178 P. 81 .) Where the complaint sets up several distinct causes of action there should be a separate findings upon each cause. ( Goodell v. Poc.-Shenon Mining Co. , 36 Idaho 427 , 212 P. 342 .) Where a defendant files a separate answer, setting up affirmative matter constituting a defense, it is error for a trial court to fail to make findings on the issues thus raised, where a finding favorable to the defendant on the issue presented would defeat the plaintiff's right of recoverq. ( Lorenzi v. Star Market Company , 19 Idaho 674 ; 35 Lrs. Ns. 142, 115 P. 490.) C.A. Bandel for respondents. The trial court found no conflicting evidence that plaintiffs had made no demand or request as to how or to what indebtedness said payments were to be applied and that defendants applied payments upon indebtedness of plaintiffs as they were legally entitled to do and therefore defendants had the right to apply such payments as they saw fit. The direction of debtor must be made prior to payments and prior to entry of credits. (48 C. J., p. 643, 644, sece. 87, 88; Smith v. Thomas , 42 Idaho 375 ; Carson v. Cook County Liq. Co. , Ann. Cas. 1915, B. 695.) It is well settled that simple receipts are only prima facie evidence of the truth of the statements recited therein and that oral evidence is admissible to show that the money receipted for was not in fact paid. Releases contractual in their nature are governed by the rule excluding parole evidence, but those not contractual and which are in substance mere receipts, are not within the rule, but are subject to the law governing receipts. The words in the marginal release (Fully paid, satisfied and discharged) importing payment of the indebtedness secured by the mortgage in effect constituted a receipt and nothing more. This holding is supported by the weight of authority. ( Berryman v. Dore , 43 Idaho 327 ; Thompson v. Layman , 42 N.W. 1061 (Minn.); Thompson v. Avery , 39 P. 829 (Utah); Beal v. Stevens , 14 P. 186 (Calif.); Soule v. Soule , 32 N.E. 663 (Mass.)

Addendum

In view of the allegations in the petition for rehearing and the earnestness with which it is urged by counsel for appellants the evidence in this case before the court has again been carefully examined, and we are convinced that the errors urged are without merit.

On the question of respondents' open account against appellants, and the items of charges and credits by them, there was of course, a conflict in the evidence. It is our opinion that the decision of the trial court as to the status of this account is sustained by the following table of charges and credits:

Respondents' Charges to Appellants:

Defendants Equity in contract ............... $2573.26 Tractor note ................................ 860.00 Payment on land certificates by Sauer as of 6-5-34 .......................... 94.52 Payment on land certificates by Sauer as of 11-13-37 ........................ 415.61 Payment of taxes for the year 1937 .......... 125.06 Payment by Sauer of McCarty note to First Security Bank as of 9-25-37 ........... 1200.00 *Page 758 Payment by Sauer of McCarty note to Bank as of 11-20-38 ......................... 2057.91 Payment by Sauer of 1938 taxes as of 12-12-38 ................................. 118.73 Payment by Sauer to State on land sale certificates as of 12-12-38 ............ 407.72 Payment by Sauer to International Harvester Company ........................... 500.00 Advance by Sauer to McCarty ................. 100.00 Payment by Sauer to State on land sale certificates as of 2-29-39 ............. 387.40 Payment by Sauer to county on taxes as of 11-27-39 .............................. 142.71 Payment by Sauer to State on land sale certificates as of 2-9-40 .............. 380.01 Payment by Sauer to county on taxes as of 12-12-41 .............................. 141.65 ------- Total ..................................... $ 9,504.58

Interest charges on various items ........... 2,020.11

Grand Total ............................... $11,524.69

Respondents' Credits to Appellants:

Jan. 28, 1935. Wheat check ..................$ 215.07 Jan. 15, 1935. Wheat check. ................. 164.44 Sep. 20, 1936. Wheat check. ................. 112.65 Mar. 10, 1937. Wheat check. ................. 256.78 Aug. 30, 1939. Barley check. ................ 60.00 Sep. 19, 1939. Wheat check. ................. 1475.00 1940 Wheat. ................................. 300.00 Jan. 17, 1941. Wheat check. ................. 842.66 August 1939. Wheat. ......................... 5.25 Dec. 1, 1937. Wheat. ........................ 1602.26 Nov. 1938. Wheat. ........................... 1273.19 Jan. 1, 1939. Wheat. ........................ 1124.00 Additional Credits in 1937 .................. 372.96 21.76 -------- Total ..................................... $7,826.02

Under the well known rule of this court on the question of conflict of evidence, we are not at liberty to disturb the findings of the trial court, and we believe its findings are amply supported by the evidence.

Therefore, the judgment for $3698.67 and interest in *Page 759 favor of respondents against appellants, is reaffirmed, respondents to deliver to appellants the certificates of sale of state land, appellants to pay the balance due the state thereon.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Ailshie and Givens, JJ., and Sutton, D.J., concur.

Budge, J., sat at the hearing in this case, but did not participate in this opinion.

Holden, C.J., deeming himself disqualified, did not sit at the hearing or participate in the opinion and in his place Sutton, D.J., sat.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.