RESPASS et al. v. ODEN, 294 F. 285

PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs in error complain of a judgment rendered upon their promissory note to Oden. It was in usual form, save for the clause: “This note is to be paid only in case Ji P. Oden sustains' a loss through the purchase of lot 9,” etc. The note represented money advanced by Oden, which was used as a first payment on an oil lease on the lot which the parties were buying together. Eater Oden furnished the same amount for the second payment, and the other parties the same amount for the third and final payment,. Oil development was unsuccessfully attempted, and the lot proved to be worthless.

The makers of this note insist that this conditional clause referred only to a loss of the first payment, which might result from forfeiture if the other payments were not made, and did not contemplate a loss developing after the purchase was complete. We cannot give it this

interpretation. The note was-, we think, plainly intended to guarantee .Oden against the loss of this payment for any reason. If one buys property which turns out to be worthless, the purchase money is lost. This was the construction given by the trial court, and it was right. Since there were no findings of facts, upon a trial to the court after jury waived in writing, no other question is open for review. Cleveland v. Walsh Co. (C. C. A. 6) 279 Fed. 57, 61. The judgment' is affirmed. @=For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMI3HK in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes