Bearden v. Nesuda

• Decision Date: 25 June 1953
• Docket Number: No. 3098,3098
• Citation: 259 S.W.2d 621
• Parties: BEARDEN v. NESUDA et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 621

259 S.W.2d 621

BEARDEN v. NESUDA et al.

No. 3098.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco.

June 25, 1953.

W. J. Garrett, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Earle C. Driskell, Ennis, for appellees.

HALE, Justice.

Appellant sued appellee and Cosmopolitan Building Corporation, hereafter referred to as the Corporation, to recover on a negotiable promissory note dated March 1, 1950, in the principal sum of $510, said note being signed by appellee and being payable to the order of the Corporation one year after its date, alleging that he was an innocent purchaser for value of the note before its maturity. Appellee answered with a general denial and a verified plea that there was no consideration for the execution of the note, that the consideration for the execution thereof had wholly failed, that the consideration was illegal, that the note was given in payment for seventeen shares of the Corporation's capital stock, that the stock was never issued or delivered to him, that the Corporation had become insolvent, that appellant was an active director of the corporation at all times material to the suit and knew, or should have known, of its insolvency and that he was not an innocent purchaser of the note.

The case was tried before the court without a jury and resulted in judgment for appellant against the Corporation but in favor of appellee on appellant's asserted cause of action against him. As we understand appellant's brief, he contends in substance that the court erred in rendering judgment for appellee because he says the note in controversy was transferred in due course of business from the Corporation to B. A. King, that he purchased the note for a valuable consideration before its maturity from King and that he was an innocent purchaser thereof without any knowledge or notice of any defense which appellee might have had against its enforcement in the hands of the Corporation.

At the request of appellant, the trial court filed extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, finding in effect that the facts alleged in the answer of appellee to the petition of appellant were substantially true and correct. Although appellant does not mention in his brief any of the findings of fact by the trial court, we cannot ignore such findings because if they are supported by the evidence they are conclusive against the contentions urged here on behalf of appellant.

The evidence shows that the Corporation was organized by the officers and directors of the ...