Hull v. Guaranty State Bank
| Decision Date | 27 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3003.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Citation | 270 S.W. 191 |
| Parties | HULL v. GUARANTY STATE BANK OF CARTHAGE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Panola County; Chas. L. Brockfield, Judge.
Action by E. A. Hull against the Guaranty State Bank of Carthage, Tex. Judgment for plaintiff in amount less than prayed for, and both parties appeal. Reversed and rendered.
The suit was by Hull to recover of the bank the amount of a promissory note as follows:
In his petition Hull alleged, and at the trial testified, that Trabue was president of the bank at the time he (Trabue) executed the note; that the note was for indebtedness of the bank to him (Hull); and that it was intended to be and to operate as the obligation of the bank. Hull further alleged as follows:
"That by an error and oversight and through mutual mistake of the plaintiff and of the said Trabue the note was not signed by the defendant herein acting by the said Trabue as it should have been, but the said Trabue signed it alone, although it was in truth and in fact the obligation of the bank and not of Trabue, and should have been signed by the bank acting by its president, Trabue, instead of Trabue individually."
The answer of the bank, which was duly sworn to, included a plea denying that it executed the note or authorized Trabue to act for it in executing it, and charging that the note was without a consideration so far as the bank was concerned.
In his petition Hull alleged, further, and as a witness testified, that the consideration for the note was cotton sold by him to Trabue, acting for the bank, in 1909, 1910, and at the time the note was executed.
The trial court instructed the jury that Trabue was without authority to act for the bank in executing the note, but that the bank was nevertheless liable to Hull for $834.15 and interest thereon from March 18, 1912, as the part unpaid of the purchase price of cotton he sold Trabue at the time the note was executed, because it appeared, the court concluded, that the bank had used that cotton for its own benefit. The jury having returned a verdict in Hull's favor for said sum of $834.15 and interest, in conformity to instructions given them, judgment was rendered in Hull's favor for said sum and interest,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slaton State Bank v. Amarillo Nat. Bank
...of the notes in question. That part of the holding is in conflict with the decision of the Texarkana Court of Appeals in Hull v. Guaranty State Bank, 270 S. W. 191, and also with Rodgers v. Central State Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 620. Moreover, it directly conflicts with w......
-
National City Bank v. Taylor
... ... note, to recover against the other appellees, as guarantors, upon their alleged written guaranty of the prompt payment of the note when discounted for the payee by the plaintiff. As a defense, in ... of the board of directors, and was never in fact executed or delivered to the Guaranty State Bank, and never became its property or asset; that the board of directors and the guarantors were ... Hull v. Guaranty State Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) ... Page 618 ... 270 S. W. 191; Farmers' State Bank & ... ...
-
Farmers' State Bank & Trust Co. v. Central State Bank
...officer, received the proceeds of the note, for this proof would not render the contract declared on legal. Hull v. Guaranty State Bank of Carthage (Tex. Civ. App.) 270 S. W. 191. If the bank, however, used for its own benefit the money representing the proceeds of the discount of such note......