Bond v. Mallow
| Decision Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Citation | 17 Tex. 636 |
| Parties | JOHN O. P. AND W. K. BOND v. MICHAEL MALLOW. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
There is no statement of facts, and we must presume that all the proof necessary to sustain the verdict was adduced.
Where suit is brought upon a promissory note against the maker, the most that can be claimed for a plea of general denial is, to require plaintiff to produce the note; but it seems that this should be produced at the trial, whether there be pleadings by the defendant or not. [25 Tex. 372; 25 Tex. Sup. 245, 451.]
We have repeatedly held that where the evidence is all on one side, and sufficient to support the verdict, it is no invasion of the province of the jury, for the court to instruct them to find such verdict. [5 Tex. 151;10 Tex. 116;11 Tex. 585;ante, 372; 20 Tex. 118, 164, 299.]
Error from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine.
The note was not payable in Guadalupe on its face. It seems, from the instructions of the court, that the plea of privelege was submitted to the jury with the general issue. The plea was not sworn to; but there was no exception to it. It seems to have been the opinion of the court below, that the fact that the land for which the note was given, and against which the plaintiff was asserting his vendor's lien, lay in Guadalupe, gave the district court of that county jurisdiction, without regard to the residence of the defendant. But there being no exception or statement of facts, the point was not presented in this court.
J. Ireland, for plaintiffs in error.
Hancock & West, for defendant in error.
Suit on a note by the Bonds, promising to pay Mallow fifteen hundred dollars for a tract of land purchased of him. The note was set out in the petition. The defendants pleaded a general denial, and that they were citizens of Gonzales and not suable in the county of Guadalupe. The judgment was for plaintiff for the amount of the notes and foreclosure of the lien upon the land.
Several errors were assigned, but one of which was insisted upon in argument by the plaintiffs in error, and this was to the effect that the court erred in its charge, in assuming the debt to be proved and sustained.
The charge in substance was, that if the jury believed from the evidence that the land described in the petition was the land for which the note was given, and that it is in Guadalupe county, they will so state and render a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount of the note sued upon with interest.
There can be no valid objection to the direction of the court to find for the plaintiff the amount of the note and interest. There is no statement of facts, and we must presume that all the proof necessary to sustain the verdict was adduced. The pleadings of the defendant disclosed no defense. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwestern Fire & Cas. Co. v. Larue
...denial. I suggest that the general denial raised issues of fact and that the judgment was, therefore, erroneously entered. In Bond v. Mallow, 17 Tex. 636, 637, this Court stated that a general denial in a suit on a note is 'as nearly equivalent to no answer as it can be and yet have the nam......
-
City of San Antonio v. Lane
...written, and is all on one side, the court might so state to the jury. Reid v. Reid, 11 Tex. 585;Mitchell v. DeWitt, 20 Tex. 294;Bond v. Mallow, 17 Tex. 636. In this case there is no statement of facts to show what was actually in evidence; but there is to be no presumption in favor of the ......
-
Alexander v. Houston Oil Field Material Co., 96
...of producing and offering in evidence the note sued on. Robinson v. Brinson, 20 Tex. 438, 440; Kinnard v. Herlock, 20 Tex. 48; Bond v. Mallow, 17 Tex. 636, 637. In face of the general denial the question of whether the appellee was the owner and holder of the note was a question of a materi......
-
Davis v. Marshall
...to a suit on a promissory note answers by a general denial, the plaintiff must produce the note in evidence. 9 Tex. 610;12 Tex. 88;17 Tex. 636;20 Tex. 48; 25 Tex. S. 245, 251. ERROR from Panola. Tried below before the Hon. C. A. Frazer. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the amount......