Citizens' Nat. Bank of Stamford v. Stevenson
Decision Date | 01 June 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 224-3392.) |
Citation | 231 S.W. 364 |
Parties | CITIZENS' NAT. BANK OF STAMFORD v. STEVENSON. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by the Citizens' National Bank of Stamford against J. H. Stevenson. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed (211 S. W. 644), and plaintiff brings error. Judgments of the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and cause remanded to the trial court, with instructions to render judgment for plaintiff, on recommendation of the Commission of Appeals.
Andrews & Combes, of Stamford, for plaintiff in error.
Stinson, Chambers & Brooks, of Abilene, for defendant in error.
In its petition for writ of error, the plaintiff in error states the nature and result of the suit with commendable clearness and brevity as follows:
The majority opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals referred to will be found in 211 S. W. 644. Associate Justice Higgins filed a vigorous dissent in a very able and exhaustive opinion. 211 S. W. 646.
As we view it, the controlling question in this appeal is whether or not, when the stock was first issued by the bank, it had been paid for in money. If so, then the note was not void, and Stevenson was liable upon it, as well as the various renewals thereof given from time to time. As bearing upon the above issue, the findings of fact of the trial court, adopted by the Court of Civil Appeals, are:
The record is strikingly free from controverted issues of fact. The facts are all undisputed, except with reference to the note executed by Stevenson to the Western National Bank of Fort Worth. In the first place, Stevenson testified very positively that he never did sign a note to said bank, but only and always to the plaintiff in error. The trial court found against this contention. Again, there was some dispute in the evidence as to whether or not the Fort Worth Bank note was payable on demand, or in 30 or 60 days. The lower court found that it was a demand note, but not presented for payment until 30 days after its execution. The case was very fully developed.
The federal statutes governing the increase of capital stock and the issuance thereof by national banks provide:
Article 1146 of Vernon's Sayles' Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, carrying out provisions of the Constitution of Texas, is as follows:
The defendant in error invoked the Texas law in an effort to avoid his note. The plaintiff in error is a national bank,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau
...judicial action, except so far as the law making power of the government may permit.' In Citizens' National Bank of Stamford v. Stevenson, Tex.Com.App., 231 S.W. 364, 366 (opinion by Judge Powell) it is 'It is well settled that, if the federal and state provisions upon any point with refere......
-
Emco, Inc. v. Healy
...in consideration of a note from the purchaser to the corporation. It is not the same situation as found in cases such as Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Stevenson, 231 S.W. 364 (Tex.Com.App.1921, jdgmt. adopted); Ruthart v. First State Bank, Tulia, Texas, 431 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1968, ......
-
Langdeau v. Republic National Bank of Dallas, s. A-7728
...therewith must yield. See Van Reed v. Peoples National Bank, 198 U.S. 554, 25 S.Ct. 775, 49 L.Ed. 1161; Citizens National Bank of Stamford v. Stevenson, Tex.Com.App., 231 S.W. 364. We agree that the issue here also is not one of jurisdiction, but is one as to the proper venue, or proper loc......
-
Riverside Nat. Bank v. Lewis
...78 L.Ed. 1425 (1934); First National Bank v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 44 S.Ct. 213, 68 L.Ed. 486 (1924). See also: Citizens' Nat. Bank of Stamford v. Stevenson, 231 S.W. 364 (Tex.Comm.App.1921, jdgm't There is nothing in the Texas D.T.P.A. which interferes with the purposes of the creation o......