Kliesing v. Neuhaus
Decision Date | 11 February 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 12661,12661 |
Parties | KLIESING v. NEUHAUS. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Rucks, Enlow & Kee and Robert C. Koonce, Angleton, for appellant.
Russell Scott and Pat N. Fahey, Houston, for appellee.
The appellee concedes that this statement of the nature and result of the trial of this cause below in an adequate one:
'Appellant filed his reply to appellee's motion for severance and also answered appellee's motion for summary judgment supported by affidavit of appellant.
'The motion for severance was heard by the trial court and the court granted such motion and severed appellee's cause of action from appellant's cross-claim.
In this Court appellant presents three points of error, contending that the trial court erred (1) because 'Appellant's cross-action grew out of and was a part of the same transaction as appellee's cause of action, (2) there were material issues of fact that should be determined by a jury,' and (3) the 20,000 shares of Regent Aircraft, Inc., stock were given as collateral security for the note sued on, and should have been disposed of by the judgment. None of the stated presentments, it is determined, should be sustained. Indeed, it seems plain to this Court from the mere statement of the nature and result of the cause below that it plainly required the application thereto of Rule 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure because there was no material issue of fact raised between the appellant and the appellee; it was simply a promissory note from the appellant to the appellee in return for the latter's furnishing the former $7,000 in money, which had been signed by the appellant and the other two makers with him, R. S. Johnson and Ray M. Hay, and to which such makers had attached shares of stock in the Regent Aircraft, Inc., in which such makers were interested, as collateral security.
In other words, the fact that appellant and his two cosigners of the note they gave the appellee for his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ruthart v. First State Bank, Tulia, Texas
...to R.A.R., Inc. whose stock was simultaneously transferred to appellant and was given as collateral, is no defense. Kliesing v. Neuhaus (Tex.Civ.App.) 265 S.W.2d 215. The alleged cause of action of appellee against appellant is separate and distinct from that alleged by appellant against th......
-
Jones v. Hubbard
...paying defendants' obligation at the bank as a matter of law constitutes consideration for defendants' note. See also: Kliesing v. Neuhaus, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W.2d 215, and Estes v. Oilfield Salvage Co., Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W.2d 201, in which cases summary judgment were upheld for plaintif......
-
Rice v. Travelers Exp. Co., 14863
...court is vested with broad discretion in severing causes and ordering separate trials. Rules 174, 97(h), and 41, T.R.C.P.; Kliesing v. Nauhaus, 265 S.W.2d 215 (Tex.Civ.App.), n.w.h.; Pure Oil Co. v. Fowler, 302 S.W.2d 461 (Tex.Civ.App.), n.r.e. We hold the meaning of the above rules is such......