Hendrick v. Chase Furniture Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7543.) |
| Citation | 186 S.W. 277 |
| Parties | HENDRICK v. CHASE FURNITURE CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.
Action by the Chase Furniture Company against J. W. Hendrick. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Morris & Pope, of Dallas, for appellant. Seay & Seay, of Dallas, for appellee.
Appellee sued appellant for the principal, interest, and attorney's fees upon two promissory notes executed by appellant to appellee and payable January 2, 1914, one for $200, due April 20, 1914, and one for $681.25, due May 20, 1914. Suit was commenced July 11, 1914, alleging both notes to be due and unpaid. After service of citation appellant filed answer, admitting the execution of the notes, the genuineness of the debt, the correctness of the amount, and that they were due according to their terms and unpaid, but urging as a defense thereto, in substance, the following facts: Prior to the execution of the notes sued on appellant was indebted to appellee in the sum of $1,081.25 on open account. At that time appellee requested appellant to merge the indebtedness into notes, representing that it would be convenient to have it in that form, and suggesting the execution of the notes described and two others each for $100 and maturing before either of the notes sued on. Appellant informed appellee that due to financial conditions then existing he did not believe he could pay them in the order and amount suggested, but that he would for the convenience of appellee execute them as suggested if assured of reasonable extension. Thereupon appellee and appellant mutually agreed that appellant should execute the notes sued upon and the two others for $100 each, and that appellee should upon payment of the two $100 notes extend the third note for $200, and that, when it was paid, the fourth note for $681.25 should be extended by appellant executing a series of $200 notes covering same, which renewals were also to be extended from time to time upon payment of one of them. Relying upon the agreement so made, appellant executed the notes described and paid the first two $100 notes. Appellee, however, refused to observe the agreement and make the extensions, but filed suit upon the notes remaining unpaid. The representations made by appellee were made for the purpose of deceiving appellee and to induce him to execute said notes, and did in that respect deceive him. To the sufficiency of the facts so related as constituting a defense to the suit the trial judge sustained a general demurrer. The action of the court in that respect is the sole issue presented on appeal. We conclude that the demurrer was properly sustained....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waters v. Byers Bros. & Co.
...could be proven as a failure of consideration, then the parol evidence rule would amount to nothing. In the case of Hendrick v. Chase Furniture Co., 186 S. W. 278, where the defendant sought to prove a parol agreement for the renewal of notes, made at the time of their execution, it was "It......
-
Chalk v. Daggett
...Key v. Hickman (Tex. Civ. App.) 149 S. W. 275; Security Life Ins. Co. v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 170 S. W. 131; Hendrick v. Chase Furniture Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 186 S. W. 277; Long v. Riley (Tex. Civ. App.) 139 S. W. 79; Ablowich v. Greenville Nat. Bank, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 272, 54 S. W. 794. ......
-
Chalk v. Daggett
...422; Ablowich v. Greenville Nat. Bank, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 272, 54 S. W. 794; Dolson v. De Ganahl, 70 Tex. 620, 8 S. W. 321; Hendrick v. Chase Furn. Co., 186 S. W. 277; Luckenbach v. Thomas, 166 S. W. 99; Security Life Ins. v. Allen, 170 S. W. 131; Key v. Hickman, 149 S. W. 275; Standard Wago......
-
Dibrell v. Central Nat. Bank
...following Texas cases sustain it: Reid v. Allen, 18 Tex. 241; Rockmore v. Davenport, 14 Tex. 602, 65 Am. Dec. 132; Hendrick v. Chase Furn. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 186 S. W. 277; Jackson v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 46 S. W. 295; Crooker v. National Phonograph Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 647; Do......