First Nat. Bank of Iowa City, Iowa, v. Humphreys
| Decision Date | 26 March 1914 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1284.) |
| Citation | 166 S.W. 53 |
| Parties | FIRST NAT. BANK OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, v. HUMPHREYS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Van Zandt County Court; C. L. Stanford, Judge.
Action by the First National Bank of Iowa City, Iowa, against A. J. Humphreys. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
L. Davidson, of Canton, for appellant. R. M. Lively, of Canton, for appellee.
The appellant sued the appellee in the county court of Van Zandt county to recover the sum of $220 due upon a promissory note. The facts show that on March 30, 1910, the appellee executed and delivered the note sued on to the Equitable Manufacturing Company. By its terms the note was payable to the order of that company in installments, the first of which was due four months after date, and the last, one year after date. It appears from the evidence that the appellant acquired the note in due course of trade, before the maturity of the first installment. The appellee in his answer admitted the execution of the note, but claimed that it was void by reason of a fraud perpetrated at the time of its execution. The facts stated in the answer are, in substance, as follows: The defendant was a merchant, and was approached by an agent of the Equitable Manufacturing Company, and solicited to purchase a lot of jewelry. After some negotiations, a trade was concluded, and the appellee agreed to execute his note for $220 for a designated quantity of the goods. At the time the note was procured, it was agreed by and between the appellee and the agent of the manufacturing company that the latter would execute a bond as security for its guaranty that the quality of the goods was as represented, and this bond was to be deposited in the First National Bank of Canton, Tex., before the note was to become effective. Appellee further alleges that the goods were shipped and received, but no bond was ever executed, and for that reason the contract to pay the note was never a binding obligation. The appellant alleged and proved that it procured the note for value in due course of trade, without notice of the defenses alleged in the answer.
The court gave, among others, the following charge: "If you believe from the evidence that, at the time defendant signed the instrument sued on, and simultaneously with the signing of said instrument, the agent of the original payee agreed and promised to furnish a good and valuable bond, or obligation, to protect defendant in the sale and handling of said jewelry, and that said bond, or obligation, was to be so furnished as set out in defendant's answer, and that the defendant was induced by said promise to so furnish...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwest Nat. Bank of Kansas City, Missouri v. Lindsley
......578, 133 Am. St. 1042,. 104 P. 828; Lehman v. Press, 106 Iowa 389, 76 N.W. 818.). . . Where. the evidence shows that the ...v. Third Nat. Bank. of Lexington, 157 Ky. 617, 163 S.W. 766; First. National Bank etc. v. Humphreys (Tex. Civ. App.), 166. S.W. 53; First ......
-
Coats v. Stewart, 3886.
...facts as evidence. Dunlap v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 280 S.W. 276; Houston v. Holmes, Tex.Civ.App., 262 S. W. 849; First National Bank v. Humphreys, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W. 53; Sigmond Rothschild Co. v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 533; Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Dorough, Tex.Civ.App., ......
-
Sheldon v. Stevens, 12460.
...may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount thereof against all parties liable thereon." See, also, First National Bank v. Humphreys (Tex. Civ. App.) 166 S. W. 53; Security Finance Co. v. Schoenig (Tex. Civ. App.) 292 S. W. 556; Security Finance Co. v. Floyd (Tex. Civ. App.) 2......