Mitchell v. Geosonic Corp., 15353
| Decision Date | 19 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 15353,15353 |
| Citation | 431 S.W.2d 958 |
| Parties | Johnny MITCHELL, Appellant, v. GEOSONIC CORPORATION, d/b/a Triton Drilling Company, Appellee. . Houston (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ben H. Rice, III, Houston, Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, Houston, of counsel, for appellant.
Strong & Heyburn, Joseph P. Witherspoon, III, Houston, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment rendered against appellant individually for $23,814.28. Suit had been brought August 26, 1967, on a promissory note dated May 15, 1967, payable to appellee and signed by Jade Oil & Gas Company by appellant as President and appellant individually. Jade was not joined in the suit.
Appellee's petition was an ordinarily worded one for a suit on a note. It alleged, among other things, that appellee was the 'legal owner and holder' of the note, a copy of which was attached as 'Exhibit A'. The copy was not a sworn one nor was the petition sworn to.
Appellant's sworn answer contained a general denial, a special plea that he individually and for Jade signed the note solely as an accommodation to appellee to permit it to use the note as collateral for a loan until stock in Jade was issued to appellee. It is further alleged that the signing was done by both Jade and appellant under the mutual understanding and agreement that the note would be used by appellee solely as collateral. There was also a plea of want of consideration received either by Jade or appellant. There was the further plea that the note was not intended by the parties to be a payment of or in substitution for the obligation of Jade to pay appellee in corporate stock of Jade, and appellee did not receive such a payment of or in substitution for such obligation.
We reverse and remand.
The general denial raises the issue as to whether appellee was the owner and holder of the note and places the burden on plaintiff to prove these facts. Schoolcraft v. Channel Construction Co., 397 S.W .2d 256 (Tex.Civ.App.), n.r.e.; Alexander v. Houston Oil Field Material Co., 386 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.Civ.App.), n.r.e.; Shahan v. Eakin, 422 S.W.2d 751 (Tex.Civ.App.), n.w.h.; Pat H. Stanford, Inc. v. Franklin, 312 S.W.2d 703 (Tex.Civ.App.), n.w.h. Here there is nothing but the unsworn petition alleging ownership and legal holder of the note by appellee, and this is countered by appellant's general denial. Only an unsworn copy of the note is attached to the petition. Appellee's motion for summary judgment is an unsworn one. The affidavit supporting the motion for summary judgment made by appellee's representative,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Life Ins. Co. of Virginia v. Gar-Dal, Inc.
...(162 Tex. 156, 345 S.W.2d 274 (1961)).' Other cases in point are Boswell v. Handley, 397 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Sup.1966); and Mitchell v. Geosonic Corporation, 431 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.Civ.App.1968, no In this cause plaintiff attached a properly identified photocopy of the note to the affidavit of McR......
-
Perkins v. Crittenden
...(162 Tex. 156, 345 S.W.2d 274 (1961)).' Other cases in point are Boswell v. Handley, 397 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Sup.1966); and Mitchell v. Geosonic Corporation, 431 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.Civ.App.1968, no An acknowledgment (that an instrument was executed for the purposes therein expressed) does not purp......
-
Blair v. Halliburton Co., 6103
...as to whether appellee was the owner and holder of the note and places the burden on it to prove these facts. Mitchell v. Geosonic Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 431 S.W.2d 958 (n.w .h.); Schoolcraft v. Channel Construction Company, Tex.Civ.App., 397 S.W.2d 256 (n.r.e.); Alexander v. Houston Oi......
-
Bradley v. First Nat. Bank of Sudan
...raises a material fact issue as to whether appellee is the owner and holder of the note. Perkins v. Crittenden, supra; Mitchell v. Geosonic Corporation, 431 S.W.2d 958 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston (1st District) 1968, no writ); Shahan v. Eakin, 422 S.W.2d 751(Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1967, no writ)......