Goree v. Uvalde Nat. Bank
Decision Date | 21 January 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 6320.) |
Parties | GOREE v. UVALDE NAT. BANK. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Uvalde County; Joseph Jones, Judge.
Action by the Uvalde National Bank against Chas. E. Goree. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Ditzler H. Jones and L. Old, both of Uvalde, for appellant.
Martin & Martin, of Uvalde, for appellee.
This suit was to recover on a note against appellant for the sum of $3,038, dated November 1, 1918, payable four months after date with 10 per cent. attorney's fees. The bank went into liquidation because of insolvency caused by the alleged defalcations and embezzlements of its cashier, F. J. Rheiner. It was submitted on special issues, and the jury found in favor of appellee, and judgment entered for amount of note sued for in favor of appellant. The appellant defended by presenting general demurrer, general denial, plea of non est factum, and want of consideration.
The main issues grow out of the fact that because appellant was a customer of said bank having its domicile in Uvalde and residing in Sabinal it was inconvenient for him to arrange payments of or execute notes to protect overdrafts as they in the course of his business occurred from time to time. Therefore, at the suggestion of F. J. Rheiner, the cashier of said bank, appellant received from him a number of the blank checks of the bank with the understanding as appellant received notices of overdrafts he would sign blank note and mail to Rheiner, who was authorized for him to fill in the amount and hold in the bank until it could be arranged either by payment or renewal notes. This arrangement went along for a while, until the bank refused to carry appellant any further, and required security, which he gave, with his father, in a note for $8,946.82, which appellant claims embraces all his indebtedness to the bank at the time. At that time, appellant insisted upon a statement from the bank showing his indebtedness and the outstanding notes, which he never received to his satisfaction, nor was he shown all the notes signed by him, the amounts of which were intended to be embraced in the said big note. He never denied his signature to his notes, but denied the amount written on note sued on and also denied the authority to fill in the amount of renewal note; the authority being limited to overdrafts.
The real issue in the case was about the two notes held by the bank. One was for $2,940, and the note sued on for $3,038, the appellant denying in toto, and the appellee affirming, that the $3,038 was the renewal of the former note.
The said Rheiner having absconded, and there being a sharp issue of fact between the parties as to the validity of the note sued on, appellant sought to make proof of various false entries and forgeries in the books and accounts of other parties in no way connected with defendant's account, which the court would not permit, to which ruling of the court the appellant excepted.
The appellant's first assignment is:
"The court erred in sustaining the objections made by the plaintiff to questions seeking to elicit from the witness Jake Schwartz testimony to the effect that since the Uvalde National Bank closed, which was on January 8, 1919, that he had been working at said bank, in connection with one Smith, who was a United States Department of Justice man, an expert accountant, and that they found quite a large number of false entries and forgeries of various people, which said number of false entries and forgeries amounted to 1,018, which were placed on the books and records of the bank, but the court sustained the objections of the plaintiff that the same was irrelevant and immaterial and could serve no purpose in the case, all of which more fully appears by reference to defendant's bill of exception No. 22."
Appellant's first proposition is to the effect: In an action by and between the parties, where the act complained of is fraudulently done, it is permissible to show other similar fraudulent acts done by the party about the same time, as bearing on the question of intent with which the party did the act by which it is sought to hold the defendant liable, similar in its nature.
The bill of exception, though quite voluminous, we copy parts thereof as follows:
It was shown by Jake Schwartz, a witness for appellee and in charge of liquidating the bank, that the original entry of $2,940 note was the only one that appeared on the account of appellant on the liability ledger that was in the handwriting of the cashier, F. J. Rheiner, the balance of them being in the handwriting of the bookkeepers, Nunn and Kelso.
The statement of the list of all notes which appellant owed the bank, rendered him July, 1918, by Rheiner in Rheiner's handwriting, did not contain the item of note for $2,940, though purported to be dated November, 1917, and past due July, 1918, at time list was made.
The note for $8,946.82, dated October 2, 1918, signed by his father, was contemplated to embrace all past-due notes, but it seems the list did not include the note dated in November, 1917, maturing July, 1918, for $2,940, the disputed note.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lott v. Dashiell
...competent to resort to a showing of similar acts as circumstantial proof of the act in issue as part of a system or scheme. Goree v. Bank, 218 S. W. 620, 623, 624. We overrule Lott's nineteenth assignment, which complains of the admission in evidence of the sheriff's deed to John W. Smith. ......
-
Trapp v. Lampton
...present no error. Rick v. Farrell, Tex.Civ.App., 266 S.W. 522; Moorman v. Small, Tex.Civ. App., 220 S.W. 127; Goree v. Uvalde National Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W. 620; Posey v. Hanson, Tex.Civ.App., 196 S.W. 731; Loftus v. Sturgis, Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W. Another proposition asserts the cou......
-
Texas Osage Co-Operative Royalty Pool v. Cruze
...issue as alleged, proved, and submitted to the jury was whether Cruze executed the mineral deed in question. See also Goree v. Uvalde Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W. 620, writ dismissed; Compagnie Des Metauz v. Victoria Mfg. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W. 651; Belt v. Raguet, 27 Tex. 471; Ho......
-
Becker v. Mollenauer
...rights, if any, were not shown to be similar to or in any wise connected with the subject matter of this suit. Goree v. Uvalde Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W. 620, pts. 1 and 2 and authorities (er. dis.); Scales v. Lindsay, Tex.Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 286, pt. 6 (er. dis.); Stowe v. Wooten, T......