Naylor v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 24 April 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 8175.)
• Citation: 178 S.W. 620
• Parties: NAYLOR v. ANDERSON.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 620

178 S.W. 620

NAYLOR v. ANDERSON.

(No. 8175.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.

April 24, 1915.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1915.

Appeal from Knox County Court; J. H. Milam, Judge.

Action by John Naylor against T. M. Anderson. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

D. J. Brookreson, of Benjamin, for appellant. Jas. A. Stephens, of Benjamin, for appellee.

DUNKLIN, J.

John Naylor instituted this suit against T. M. Anderson upon a promissory note executed by Anderson and W. D. Phy, payable to plaintiff, and from a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff has appealed.

In the petition plaintiff alleged that Phy was not sued because he was insolvent and a nonresident of the state, and that his residence was unknown.

The trial was by the court without the aid of a jury, and the following are the findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the trial judge:

"Findings of Fact.

"First. The note sued on was executed by W. D. Phy as principal and T. M. Anderson as surety and said note has not been paid.

"Second. Said note was executed in taking up another note, made by E. V. Glover as principal and T. M. Anderson as surety, and payable to Sam Earnest, which was given for a span of horses bought by E. V. Glover from Sam Earnest, who retained a mortgage on said horses from Glover to secure the payment of the note.

"Third. On the execution of the note sued on the chattel mortgage was not renewed.

"Fourth. When the note sued on became due T. M. Anderson wrote to Homer Lee, president of First National Bank of Munday, who was holding said note for collection, that he was only surety on said note, and that W. D. Phy, the principal, had property, subject to execution, sufficient to pay off said note, and that he wanted him (Homer Lee), to collect the money from Phy to pay off the note. This letter was in reply to a letter from Homer Lee to T. M. Anderson, calling Anderson's attention to the date the note would become due and requesting payment.

"Fifth. After the letter written by T. M. Anderson to Homer Lee, suit was not instituted till the second term of county court of Knox county, Tex., which was the court of proper jurisdiction to bring the suit in, the first term having convened on the second Monday in January, 1913.

"Conclusions of Law.

"First. By reason of the failure of Homer Lee to bring suit against W. D. Phy, principal on said note, at the first term of the county court of Knox county, Tex., after having been given notice in writing by T. M. Anderson that he was only surety on said note, and that Phy was the principal, and that Phy had property, subject to execution, sufficient to pay said note, and that he wanted him (Lee) to make collection of the note from Phy, he (T. M. Anderson) was released from further liability on said note, and therefore gave judgment against plaintiff in this cause."

The facts so found were specially pleaded by Anderson, who further alleged, in substance, that at the time he wrote the...