Opinion
Dec. 28, 1971
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Ownbey, Pittam & Wilson, Richard O. Pittam, Denver, Littleton, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Kreager, Sublett & Dowis, Charles W. Kreager, Sterling, for defendant-appellee.
DWYER, Judge.
In March 1964, plaintiffs, Keith and Marlow Sharpe, executed and delivered to the defendant, Commercial Savings Bank of Sterling, a promissory note in the amount of $15,000. The note was executed by the plaintiffs in connection with the financing of Sturgis Manufacturing Company, a corporation in which the plaintiffs were major stockholders. Thereafter, the bank demanded payment, and the plaintiffs disputed their liability on the note. In October 1964, after a series of meetings between the parties, the plaintiffs delivered a check to the defendant in the amount of $7,500, and the defendant marked the $15,000 note paid and returned it to the plaintiffs.
In August 1969, plaintiffs instituted the present action. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged in substance that the defendant had coerced the plaintiffs into paying the $7,500 sum and sought to recover this amount plus punitive damages. By way of answer, the defendant alleged that the payment of the $7,500 sum was voluntarily made by the plaintiffs as a compromise settlement of the note without any coercion or threats by the defendant. Trial was to the court which, at the close of the evidence, specifically found that there was an honest and bona fide dispute between the parties concerning the validity of the $15,000 note; that the $7,500 was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant in settlement of the $15,000 note; that the $7,500 was offered and accepted in full satisfaction of the plaintiffs' obligation under the note; and that there was no coercion of the plaintiffs by the defendant. A judgment was then entered in favor of the defendant, and plaintiffs have appealed.
Plaintiffs contend on appeal that the trial court erred in finding: (1) that there was no coercion of the plaintiffs by the defendant; (2) that there was a bona fide and honest dispute between the parties concerning the validity of the promissory note; and, (3) that there was a meeting of the minds of the parties with respect to the compromise settlement of the note. The record discloses that the evidence was conflicting and susceptible of different inferences with respect to these findings of the trial court.
Upon appellate review, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the lower court, and every inference fairly deducible from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the judgment. Linker v. Linker, 28 Colo.App. 136, 470 P.2d 882. Viewed on such basis, there was ample evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings and judgment, and they will not be disturbed upon review. Linker v. Linker, Supra.
The judgment is affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and COYTE, J., concur.