P. J. Williams Industries v. First State Bank, 8616.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1931
• Docket Number: No. 8616.,8616.
• Citation: 38 S.W.2d 1109
• Parties: P. J. WILLIAMS INDUSTRIES, Inc., v. FIRST STATE BANK OF LYFORD et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

38 S.W.2d 1109

P. J. WILLIAMS INDUSTRIES, Inc., v. FIRST STATE BANK OF LYFORD et al.

No. 8616.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 6, 1931.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1931.

Appeal from Willacy County Court; B. S. Wright, Special Judge.

Action by P. J. Williams Industries, Inc., in nature of an interpleader, against the First State Bank of Lyford and others, in which C. A. Sundling intervened. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Jesse G. Foster, of Raymondville, for appellant.

A. B. Crane, of Raymondville, and L. D. Hartwell, of Greenville, for appellees.

SMITH, J.

Antonio Trevino sold three bales of cotton to P. J. Williams Industries, appellant herein, for the sum of $154.96, and the latter gave him its check therefor on the First State Bank of Lyford. Trevino indorsed the check over to W. A. Addington, but payment thereof was stopped by the latter when presented by the indorsee, on account of a dispute over the true ownership of the cotton.

Subsequently appellant instituted this action in the nature of an interpleader against the First State Bank of Lyford, W. A. Addington, Antonio Trevino, and Lorenzo Cavazos, alleging that it had in its hands $154.96, the purchase price of said cotton, which it tendered into the registry of the court to be paid over to the defendants as their right thereto might be ascertained upon the trial. C. A. Sundling intervened, claiming an interest in the stake. The defendant Addington disclaimed any interest in the stake, but in a cross-action sought to recover of the plaintiff (appellee) the amount of the latter's check ($154.96) of which he was an innocent purchaser. The remaining defendants and intervener asserted various interests in the stake held by appellant.

Upon a trial, the court divided the stake among the several claimants therefor, and, in addition, rendered judgment in favor of Addington against appellant for the amount of said check. It was shown upon the trial that Trevino, of whom appellee purchased the cotton, was not the true owner thereof, but that it was the property of defendant Cavazos, subject to the landlord's lien in favor of intervener, Sundling, and a chattel mortgage in favor of the bank.

The Williams Industries, the stakeholder, and the purchaser of the mortgaged property, does not complain of the distribution of the stake tendered by it in the trial court, but has appealed from the judgment recovered against it by Addington for the amount of the check given by appellant and indorsed by the payee to Addington, who was adjudged an innocent purchaser thereof. This statement of the case has been eked out of the record by this court, in the absence of such statement from the briefs of the parties.

Appellant seeks reversal upon two grounds, first, that the justice of the peace court, in which the suit was instituted, was without jurisdiction of the subject-matter; and, second, that appellant's check for $154.96 given to Trevino, and by the latter indorsed to appellee, was not a negotiable instrument, and that therefore appellee could not be held to be an innocent purchaser thereof.

The objection to the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court is that the amount of the stake, $154.96, tendered by the plaintiff below, and the same amount sought to be recovered in the...