Huddleston v. Kempner

Decision Date04 May 1893
Citation22 S.W. 871
PartiesHUDDLESTON v. KEMPNER et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from district court, Anderson county; F. A. Williams, Judge.

Action by C. E. Huddleston against H. Kempner and another to prevent the collection of a judgment, and to have it enforced for plaintiff's benefit. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Thos. B. Greenwood, for appellant. Burnett & Gardner, for appellees.

GARRETT, C. J.

This suit was brought by Mrs. C. E. Huddleston against H. Kempner and I. N. Singletary to prevent the collection by the defendant Kempner of a judgment obtained by him in the district court of Anderson county against his codefendant, I. N. Singletary, upon two promissory notes, with foreclosure of a vendor's lien on land, and that she be adjudged to be the true owner of said judgment, which she asked to have enforced for her benefit. It was shown on the trial that the notes upon which Kempner obtained the judgment against I. N. Singletary were two notes for $250 each, executed November 16, 1885, payable 12 and 24 months after date, respectively, to the order of C. E. Singletary, as plaintiff's name was then, she having subsequently married F. M. Huddleston. At the time the notes were executed she was the widow of a brother of the defendant I. N. Singletary. On the back of each note appears the following indorsement: "For value received, I hereby transfer the within note to F. M. Huddleston. Dec. 15th, 1887. [Signed] C. E. Singletary." Then follows the blank indorsement, "F. M. Huddleston." Below each note appears the following memorandum, pasted thereto: "The balance due on the above note, principal and interest, up to Nov. 16th, 1889, is $350, which amount I agree to pay, with ten per cent. int., on or before the 16th Novbr., 1890. Witness my hand, [Signed] I. N. Singletary." Kempner received these notes after maturity, February 1, 1889, from F. M. Huddleston, as collateral security for money which Huddleston owed him. They were sent to Huddleston to be renewed, and were returned to Kempner March 3, 1890. Plaintiff and F. M. Huddleston were married in April, 1888, and Huddleston died in 1890. Kempner brought suit on the notes against I. N. Singletary, and on May 1, 1891, recovered judgment against him for the sum of $772.80, with foreclosure of vendor's lien. Plaintiff claims that the notes were her property when they were transferred to Kempner; and, although her indorsement appeared to be without restriction, that Kempner took them after maturity, charged with notice of her equities. For this reason she assigns as error the following charges of the court: "If plaintiff signed the transfers indorsed on the notes, or if F. M. Huddleston signed her name to them by her authority, or if he signed her name to them without her authority, but that she learned of said signature, and assented to and ratified the same before the transfer to Kempner, and that such transfer to Huddleston was so made, authorized, or ratified by her for the purpose of passing the title to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • McAdam v. Grand Forks Mercantile Company, a Corporation
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1913
    ... ... such a case the plaintiff would have no further or greater ... rights than would the original purchaser, Titus ... Huddleston v. Kempner, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 252, 22 S.W ... 871; McPherson v. Weston, 85 Cal. 90, 24 P. 733; ... Kernohan v. Durham, 48 Ohio St. 1, 12 L.R.A. 41, ... ...
  • Edwards v. White
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 1909
    ...Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897, art. 307; Mayfield Grocery Co. v. Price & Co., 43 Tex. Civ. App. 391, 95 S. W. 31; Huddleston v. Kempner, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 252, 22 S. W. 871; Diamond v. Harris, 33 Tex. 635; Walker v. Wilson, 79 Tex. 185, 14 S. W. 798, 15 S. W. 402; 1 Daniel, Neg. Instruments, §§......
  • Kempner v. Huddleston
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1896
    ...and to have it enforced for her own benefit. This is the second appeal of the case. The first appeal, which is reported in 3 Tex. Civ. App. 252, 22 S. W. 871, was decided on the authority of Walker v. Wilson, 79 Tex. 185, 14 S. W. 798, and 15 S. W. 402; but as, in the latter case, the note ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT