Neese v. Riley
Decision Date | 20 May 1890 |
Citation | 14 S.W. 65 |
Parties | NEESE v. RILEY. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
John Ireland, for plaintiff in error. W. E. Goodrich, for defendant in error.
This suit was instituted by James Riley, the defendant in error, against Isaac Neese, plaintiff in error, upon two promissory notes, and to foreclose vendor's lien upon 90 or 93 acres of land described in the petition. The petition alleges that Isaac Neese, on the 1st of December, 1885, bought of A. J. Fry a tract of land, and in consideration therefor made, executed, and delivered to Fry two promissory notes, dated December 1, 1885, for $125 each, bearing 10 per cent. interest from date, and containing a stipulation that, should the notes not be paid at maturity, Neese should pay 10 per cent. attorney's fees for collecting the same, both of which notes, it is alleged, were transferred to plaintiff below (Riley) by Fry for a valuable consideration. The suit is on only one of these notes first executed, falling due January 1, 1887. It is further alleged that in further consideration for the land Neese, on January 1, 1886, made, executed, and delivered to petitioner (Riley) his note for $100, with 12 per cent. interest, payable December 1, 1886, with a stipulation that, in case the note should be collected by legal process, 10 per cent. additional on the principal should be added as attorney's fees. The notes are attached to the petition, and made a part thereof. It is alleged that Neese has failed to pay the same, or any part thereof; that they are a vendor's lien on the land, which is described as 131 acres, less 40 acres sold to another party on a given date. After these allegations the prayer follows for citation, judgment for principal and interest on the notes, the 10 per cent. attorney's fees, and order of sale to satisfy the vendor's lien. The notes sued on are as follows:
It is indorsed by A. J. Fry to James Riley or order, "without recourse." The other note is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Poulter
...in the original opinion in support of his expressed dissent, there might be mentioned Crenshaw v. Claybrook, 11 S. W. 536; Neese v. Riley, 77 Tex. 348, 14 S. W. 65; Behrens v. Dignowitty, 4 Tex.Civ.App. 201, 23 S. W. 288. But the majority still are of the opinion previously expressed, and a......
-
Edwards v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
...errors. While sometimes nothing more a mere annoyance,3 occasionally those errors have blossomed into legal disputes. In Neese v. Riley , 77 Tex. 348, 14 S.W. 65 (1890), for instance, the court confronted two notes which referred to the same deed. One note stated the land securing the loan ......
-
Fennimore v. Ingham
...80 Tex. 340, 16 S. W. 19; Hamblen v. Folts, 70 Tex. 132, 7 S. W. 834; Polk v. Kyser, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 676, 53 S. W. 87; Neese v. Riley, 77 Tex. 351, 14 S. W. 65; Russell v. Kirkbride, 62 Tex. This implied equitable vendor's lien is not waived by the substitution of a third person for the o......
-
Jones v. Moore
...the case, of proof showing the truth to be to the contrary of such recitals. Mustain v. Stokes, 90 Tex. 358, 38 S. W. 758; Neese v. Riley, 77 Tex. 348, 14 S. W. 65. The Moores and the bank insist that such proof was not absent, and in support of that view refer to testimony showing that the......