Los Angeles Trust & Savings Bank v. Forve

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendant, Philip Forve, from a judgment for the plaintiff, and against him, in an action to recover from defendants their respective proportions of an indebtedness due plaintiff from Phoenix Lighting Fixture Company, in which company the defendants each held one-third of the capital stock at the time of the creation of the indebtedness sued upon.

The answer of the appellant denies that the indebtedness sued upon has not been paid, and alleges that each and every part of said indebtedness has been paid. Appellant also sets up in his answer an alleged agreement between himself and

[299]

the other defendant and one W. G. Hutchinson, the owner of the remainder of the stock, whereby it was agreed that said Hutchinson would buy all the stock owned by said defendants and would pay the indebtedness of the company to the bank and would save said defendants harmless from all liability as stockholders of said corporation. This second defense does not concern us upon appeal, because the trial court found that the plaintiff bank had no knowledge of such an agreement and correctly held that it was not bound thereby.

Judgment was given against each of the defendants in the sum of $8,146.15 and costs, but the appeal is by the defendant Forve alone. The first point made by the appellant is that the evidence was insufficient to justify the court in finding that no part of the indebtedness sued upon had been paid, except for certain payments received from the bankruptcy court out of the assets of the Phoenix Company. The argument of the appellant upon this point is merely an argument upon the weight of the evidence. There is a conflict in the evidence upon this point, but the evidence abundantly supports the finding made. We may agree with the appellant’s argument that certain inferences might have been made which would support a contrary finding, but this would not help him any. Upon the evidence in the record, we are powerless to disturb the finding of the trial court.

The second contention of the appellant makes necessary a discussion of somewhat complex facts. The Phoenix Company had borrowed from the plaintiff bank certain sums of money aggregating twenty-five thousand dollars, which loans were evidenced by promissory notes held by the bank, one in the sum of five thousand dollars, and two in the sum of ten thousand dollars each, dated respectively April 12, 1911, May 22, 1911, and September 1, 1911. The company had also borrowed from the plaintiff bank the further sum of five thousand dollars, for which it had also given its promissory note dated March 6, 1911. The indebtedness evidenced by this last-mentioned promissory note was not included in the amount for which this suit was brought. The indebtedness evidenced by these four notes was found by the court to have been renewed by the note of the company for thirty thousand dollars, given on April 24, 1912, at