Brown v. Weir
Decision Date | 01 April 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 274.) |
Citation | 293 S.W. 916 |
Parties | BROWN et al. v. WEIR. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; Elzo Been, Judge.
Suit by F. A. Brown and others, trustees of the First Baptist Church of Ranger, Tex., against A. K. Weir. Judgment for defendant, and from the overruling of a motion for new trial, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
L. R. Pearson, of Ranger, and Funderburk & Richardson, of Eastland, for appellants.
Patterson & Grantham, of Ciseo, for appellee.
This is a suit by F. A. Brown and others, trustees of the First Baptist Church of Ranger, Tex., against A. K. Weir on four promissory notes, each for the sum of $125, dated December 13, 1920, due respectively January 1, 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925, each payable to the First Baptist Church of Ranger, Tex., or order, and each reciting "for value received" and stipulating for interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from January 1, 1921, and containing the usual provision for attorney's fees.
Defendant pleaded general denial and specially pleaded defenses of: (a) Want of consideration; (b) estoppel; and (c) release from liability.
At the close of the testimony plaintiffs requested a peremptory instruction in their favor, which was refused, and the court thereupon submitted the following special issues to the jury:
The jury answered "Yes" to the first issue and "No" to the second and third.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, and the defendant filed a motion for judgment in his favor, and the court, upon consideration of the motions filed, rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant. From the overruling of the motion for a new trial and upon notice of appeal given, the judgment of the trial court and the proceedings therein are before this court for review.
There are three assignments of error, the first complaining of the action of the trial court in refusing to peremptorily instruct a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs; second, because the defendant, under his plea of lack of consideration for the notes, failed to discharge the burden of proof to show nonconsideration; and, third, complaint is made of the action of the court in placing upon the plaintiffs the burden of proof to show the affirmative of the issues 2 and 3, since said issues were material merely on the issue of consideration, the burden of establishing the nonexistence of which was upon the defendant. Subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) of the second assignment advanced the proposition that the undisputed testimony of the record in fact shows a consideration valid in law to support the notes, thus authorizing a judgment for plaintiffs.
"Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration. * * *" Section 24, art. 5933, Vernon's A. T. Statute.
"An antecedent or pre-existing debt constitutes value. * * *" Section 25, Id.
The promissory notes in controversy purport upon their face to have been given for a valuable consideration, but under the statute, all such written instruments import a consideration. Under the statute, the consideration for a written instrument can only be impeached by a sworn plea. Article 2010, subd. 10, same statute. Such a plea was interposed in the instant case. The notes importing a consideration, the burden was upon the defendant to show that there was none. The sworn plea did not shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff, but merely put the matter of consideration in issue with the burden of proof resting upon the defendant, appellee herein, to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a lack of consideration for the notes. Newton et al. v. Newton, 77 Tex. 508, 14 S. W. 157.
The introduction of the notes in evidence made out a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs and entitled them to a judgment which would be defeated by the defendant's establishing the nonexistence of consideration for the notes. The assignments assail the sufficiency of the defendant's testimony to establish the nonexistence of the consideration, and it becomes necessary to review the testimony generally and especially the appellee's testimony. In substance and so far as material, the appellee's testimony was as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Fenner, Beane & Ungerleider
...Christian v. Dunavent (Tex.Civ. App.) 232 S.W. 875; Alexander v. Good Marble & Tile Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 4 S. W.(2d) 636; Brown v. Weir (Tex.Civ. App.) 293 S.W. 916; Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Burt (Tex.Civ.App.) 71 S.W. (2d) 390, 391; Continental Oil Co v. Berry (Tex.Civ.App.) 52 S.W.(2d) ......
-
Exchange Nat. Bank v. Parsons
...So. Life Ins. Co. v. Heavin, Tex. Civ.App., 21 S.W.2d 1086; Nelson v. San Antonio Traction Co., Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W. 146; Brown v. Weir, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W. 916; Taber v. Eyler, Tex.Civ. App., 162 S.W. 490; St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. Wall, Tex.Civ.App., 165 S.W. 527; Dyo v. Winni......
-
Harris v. Thornton's Department Store
...204; Christian v. Dunavent (Tex.Civ.App.) 232 S.W. 875; Alexander v. Good Marble & Tile Co. (Tex. Civ.App.) 4 S.W.(2d) 636; Brown v. Weir (Tex.Civ.App.) 293 S.W. 916; Panhandle & S. F. R. Co. v. Burt (Tex.Civ.App.) 71 S.W.(2d) 390, 391; Continental Oil Co. v. Berry (Tex.Civ.App.) 52 S.W.(2d......
-
Robinson v. Glasse, 11715.
...plea or attempt to prove the non-existence of a consideration for said note. Haynes v. Eanes, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 799; Brown v. Wier, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W. 916. Appellant complains for the first time on this appeal of the insufficiency of appellee Glasse's controverting affidavit for ......