Gill v. Com. Nat. Bank of Dallas
| Citation | 504 S.W.2d 521,14 UCCRep.Serv. 428 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 18242,18242 |
| Parties | 14 UCC Rep.Serv. 428 Janell B. GILL and John Willis, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK OF DALLAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Wm. Andress, Jr., Andress, Woodgate & Lodewick, Dallas, for appellants.
Bergman & Hicks by Rex R. Henger, Dallas, for appellee.
This is an action on a promissory note of which the appellants are the makers and appellee is the holder. Appellee obtained summary judgment against appellants and Camelot Country Club, the payee and assignor. Only the appellants appeal, and we affirm.
The note was prepared and executed on a printed form as follows, the date, the amount, the number of installments and the amount of each, and the figures in the lower left hand corner being typed:
MONTHLY PAYMENT PLAN
Date: June 30, 1972
For value received, I, We, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of Camelot Country Club, at its offices in Carrollton, Dallas County, Texas, the sum of Sixteen Hundred twenty Dollars with interest at the rate of 8% Per annum, in monthly installments as follows: Twelve (12) installment(s) of $135.00 and one installment of $_ _, the first payment to be due _ _ and subsequent payments to be due the same day of each month thereafter (or on the last day of the month if there be no such date in the month thereafter) until paid.
Failure to pay any installment hereon when due shall, at the option of the holder, mature this note, and it shall become wholly due and payable.
This note is secured by the membership in Camelot Country Club issued in my, or our, name, and in the event of default the holder of this note, upon maturity hereof by acceleration will return the said membership to Camelot Country Club which shall repurchase same for the full amount of the original purchase price, less the amount of transfer fee based upon the sales price of memberships at the time of repurchase, being the reasonable costs of resale.
/s/ John N. Willis
/s/ Janell Gill
Appellants' summary judgment evidence consisted of John Willis' affidavit to the effect that, although the note states that it is given in payment of a membership in the Country Club, the Club was insolvent, its memberships had no value, and that he was already a member and the Club's golf professional; that appellants signed the note at the request of the Club's manager as an accommodation to the Club to enable it to obtain money from appellee to meet the Club's payroll, and that neither of the appellants received any consideration for signing the note, and that this fact was known to appellee.
By their first point of error appellants assert that the note, being incomplete, cannot be enforced. This is based on the omission of the due date of the first monthly installment. They cite Tex.Bus & Comm.Code Ann. § 3.115(a) (Vernon 1968), as follows:
(a) When a paper whose contents at the time of signing show that it is intended to become an instrument is signed while still incomplete in any necessary respect it cannot be enforced until completed, but when it is completed in accordance with authority given it is effective as completed.
In our opinion, the leaving of this blank unfilled did not make the instrument incomplete in a 'necessary respect.' Section 3.108* provides that an instrument in which no time for payment is stated is payable on demand. This has been the law in Texas for many years, as shown in Davis v. Dennis,448 S.W.2d 495, 497 (Tex.Civ.App .--Tyler 1969, no writ), where the facts were almost identical. The first point of error is accordingly overruled.
In their second, third and fourth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carnival Leisure Industries, Ltd. v. Aubin
...Bank v. McKay, 521 S.W.2d 661, 662 (Tex.Civ. App. — Houston 1st Dist. 1975, no writ); Gill v. Commonwealth Nat'l Bank of Dallas, 504 S.W.2d 521, 523 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The negotiability of a draft is not affected by the fact that it is post-dated, ante-dated, o......
-
In re Boardwalk Marketplace Securities Litigation
...indication of a payment due date, are demand notes. Cohan v. Flanders, 315 F.Supp. 1046 (S.D.Ga. 1970); Gill v. Commonwealth, 504 S.W.2d 521, 14 U.C.C.Rep.Serv. 428 (Tex.Civ.App. 1973); Master Homecraft Co. v. Zimmerman, 208 Pa.Super. 401, 222 A.2d 440 (1966); Liberty Aluminum Products Co. ......
-
Koepp v. Koepp, No. 4-08-00760-CV (Tex. App. 6/24/2009)
...He principally relies on Martin v. Ford, 853 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1993, writ denied),Gill v. Commonwealth Nat'l Bank, 504 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and Davis v. Dennis, 448 S.W.2d 495 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1969, no writ). In Martin, the note appa......