"Parol evidence is always admissible where it is necessary in order to identify * * * the subject matter of a * * * contract * * * for without such evidence it would be impossible to give effect to the intentions of the parties." See Varner-Collins Hardware Co. v. New Milford Security Co., 49 Okla. 613, 153 P. 667, and Ferguson v. Blackwell. 5 Okla. 489, 58 P. 647, and Hines v. Olsen. 78 Okla 259, 190 P. 266. Then follow illustrations of the many such contracts capable of explanation, and among those cited are "* * * the obligations of one party to a contract which the other had undertaken to pay." Beemer v. Packard, 92 Hun, 546, 38 N.Y.S. 1045. There was no proper objection to the competency of this type of evidence, for both parties resorted to it.
However, a judgment not disclosing on which of several grounds it is based, but which is general in terms, will not be reversed if any one of such grounds is a valid basis therefor, and there is sufficient evidence to sustain it upon such grounds. Hines v. Olsen, 78 Okla. 259, 190 P. 266. As previously indicated, the verdict in this case can be sustained upon the theory that the defendant entered into an oral agreement with the mortgagee for the payment of the indebtedness.
There are circumstances which indicate that the plaintiff did agree to pay off the first mortgage and cancel the second mortgage; but in this case the judgment of the trial court was in favor of the plaintiff, and it is a general judgment, and, in a civil action triable to the court, where the finding of the court is general, such finding is a finding of each specific thing necessary to sustain the general finding, and where such finding is not clearly against the weight of the evidence, the judgment will be affirmed. Watashe v. Tiger. 88 Okla. 77, 211 P. 415; Salmon v. Johnson, 78 Okla. 182, 189 P. 537; Hines v. Olson, 78 Okla. 259, 190 P. 266; White v. Kroeger, 77 Okla. 46, 48, 186 P. 477, 478; King v. Gant, 77 Okla. 105, 186 P. 960; Town of Rush Springs v. Bentley, 75 Okla. 119, 182 P. 664; Alberty v. Alberty, 72 Okla. 237, 180 P. 370; In re Cobb's Estate, 66 Okla. 53, 166 P. 885; King v. Farris, 54 Okla. 594, 154 P. 510; Hixon v. Hubbell, 4 Okla. 244, 44 P. 222; Penny v. Fellner, 6 Okla. 386, 50 P. 123. This is an equity case, and we cannot say that the judgment of the court is against the clear weight of the evidence.
The judgment of a trial court, when not against the clear weight of the evidence, should not be disturbed here by this court. Hines v. Olsen, 78 Okla. 259, 190 P. 266; Salmon v. Johnson, 78 Okla. 182, 189 P. 537; Watashe v. Tiger, 88 Okla. 77, 211 P. 415. A careful examination of the record in this case discloses that the clear weight of the evidence before the trial court supports the finding of the facts and the conclusions of law embodied in the judgment of the court, and the said judgment should in all things be affirmed; and it now here appearing that the case-made contains a copy of the supersedeas bond, executed by Lee Stinchcomb, George G. Miller, and Stanley Rogers, sheriff of Oklahoma county, as principals thereof, and Knox B. Henderson, as surety, in the sum of $100, for payment of costs in case judgment herein should be against them, it is, therefore, ordered and decreed by this court that the judgment of the trial court in all matters be affirmed, and this cause remanded to the court below, with directions to the latter to tax the costs against the defendants herein, Lee Stinchcomb, George G. Miler, and Stanley Rogers, as such sheriff
Nor do we perceive any substantial error in the court's conclusions of law and judgment. In such case the finding and judgment will not be disturbed. Rush Springs v. Bently, 75 Okla. 119, 184 P. 664; Nelson v. Golden, 84 Okla. 29, 202 P. 308; Hines v. Olsen. 78 Okla. 259, 190 P. 266. From a reading of the record, it is our conclusion that the finding of facts is not against the weight of the evidence and that the conclusion of law and judgment are applicable to and responsive to the facts found.
"Where a judgment does not disclose which of several grounds it is based upon, but Is general in its terms, it will not be reversed it any one of such grounds is a valid basis for the judgment and there is sufficient evidence to sustain it upon that ground." To the same effect was Hines et al. v. Olson et al., 78 Okla. 259, 190 P. 266. Section 4705, Rev. Laws 1910, provides:
Defendant's further argument goes to the sufficiency of the evidence. This court has repeatedly held that in a case tried to the court, where the evidence reasonably tends to support the judgment of the trial court, such judgment will not be disturbed on appeal. Union Sav. Assn. v. Cummins, 78 Okla. 265, 188 P. 1069; Hines v. Olsen, 78 Okla. 259, 185 P. 436; Stone v. Stone, 66 Oklahoma, 168 P. 423. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court will he affirmed.