
    LEE et al. v. OKLAHOMA STATE BANK OF PONCA CITY.
    No. 16825
    Opinion Filed May 25, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied July 13, 1926.
    Contracts — Consideration — Extension ,of Time for Payment or Forbearance , to Sue.
    An extension of time for the payment of indebtedness or forbearance from suit on a valid cause of action constitutes a sufficient consideration for a new promise to -pay a like amount to tbe -party granting such extension or forbearing such suit.
    (Syllabus by Williams, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 2.
    Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Wm. H. Zwick, Judge.
    Action by tbe Oklahoma State Bank of Ponca City against Joe Lee and Abe Lee, partners doing business under the style and firm name of Lee Brothers, on a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    J. Z. Werby, for1 plaintiffs in error.
    Embry, Johnson & Tolbert, for defendant in error.
   WILDIAMS, C.

The -parties herein will be referred to -as they appeared in the trial cdurt.

This action was commenced in the district court of Oklahoma county by the Oklahoma Sbaite Bank of Ponc-a City, as plaintiff, against Joe Lee and Abe Lee, partners doing-business under the style and firm name of Lee Brothers, as defendants, on a prolmissory note executed by Lee Brothers in. favor of the bank. The petition was in the usual form, praying for the principal sum and for interest and attorney’s fees.

Tlie defendants filed a verified answer denying generally all of 'the 'allegations off plaintiff’s petition; denying that they were in anywise indebted to plaintiff, and further alleging chat the note sued on was without consideration.

A jury being waived, the action was tried to the .court, which, after hearing the evidence, rendered judgment for the full amount sued fotr.

The record discloses that on November 21, 1920, ‘Sam Lee of Ponca City loaned Iris two brothers, defendants herein, $1,000. Abouc two years later, when Sam Lee was leaving for Europe, the defendants gave Sam Lee five notes off $200 each, to cover the loan of $1,000. Thereafter, and on October 20, 1922, .and before maturity of the first of said series of notes, the Oklahoma Stare Bank of Ponca City bought the entire series of ndtes from Sam Lee. Defendants paid the first of said series o^ notes at maturity, and renewed the remaining four notes of $200 each by giving their note for $800 dated April 25, 1923. Thereafter, and on November 22, 1923, they renewed the $800 note by giving to the plaintiff bank the note s-.ied on.

Defendants argue their several specificatidbs of error under the following general proposition of law:

“The court erred in its refusal to permit the defendants to offer evidence in support of their contention that the note in controiversy was not executed and delivered by them to the plaintiff for a valuable, or any consideration whatsoever, and that said note was without any consideration whatsoever.”

We think it is sufficient to say that we have carefully examined the evidence, and offer of evidence, rejected, and find no error in i'rs rejection.

The only contention seriously urged by defendants in this appeal is that there was no consideration for the note .sued on as between the plaintiff bank .and defendants. The defendants complain off the court’s ruling rejecting -evidence oo show a lack of consideration moving from (he plaintiff bank tcs the defendants. It appears that Sam Lee transacted most of the defendants’ business for them with the bank, and chat he delivered the -defendants’ renewal notes to the bank .and received back the original four $200 notes, which were- marked and stamped “paid.” Defendants attempted to¡ show that these original four notes had never been returned to them. Defendants cctacede (hat a-s to the original notes the plaintiff was a holder in due course, but contend that plaintiff abandoned that position when it delivered the sole consideration fot the note in controversy (the original notes) to a person other than the makers, the defendants, thereby placing the defendants -and Sam Lee in their original positions as debtor and creditor, respectively. There is noi merit in this contention, and there was no error committed by -the court in rejecting the evidence. The consideration for the note sued on is clearly shown to be the canceling of the first note for $800, marking the same “paid,” and surrendering it, and the extension by the acceptance of the note sued on.

In the case of Sawyer v. Bahnsen et al., 102 Okla. 41, 226 Pac. 344, the first, paragraph off the sylíabus reads as follows:

“An extension of time for the payment of indebtedness or forbearance from suit on a valid cause of action constitutes a sufficient consideration for a new promise to pay a like amount to the party granting such extension or forbearing, such suit.”

The record shows conclusively (hint there was no prejudicial error in .any of the court's rulings, and that had all of the evidence offered or tendered by the defendants been admitted, it would nob in any way have chialnged the conclusion reached by the court. The evidence shows clearly that the defendants borrowed $1,000 from, -their brother, and gave him five notes for $200 each therefor; that the plaintiff bank, before maturity, for value; purchased these notes; th'alt thereafter the defendants paid the first of . these notes, and renewed the remaining four notes by giving t-heir note dated April 23, 1923, for $800 to the plaintiff bank; that thereafter they renewed this note by giving the note sued on to the plaintiff bank, which is dated November 22, 1923, for $800, the execution of which is admitted, and which has not been paid, and which is owned and held by the plaintiff.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court should be -affirmed.

By the Court; It is so ordered.

Note. — See 13 C. J. pp. 344, 345, § 194; anno. 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 842; L. R. A. 1918C, 547; 6 R. C. L. p. 660; 2 R. C. L. Supp. p. 175; 4 R. C. L. Supp. p. 432.  