Roddy v. Citizens' State Bank
| Decision Date | 17 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 10313.) |
| Parties | RODDY et al. v. CITIZENS' STATE BANK OF COPEVILLE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John Doyle, of McKinney, and Wynne & Wynne, of Kaufman, for plaintiffs in error.
W. R. Abernathy, of McKinney, for defendant in error.
The Citizens' State Bank of Copeville, Collin county, filed suit against J. J. Roddy on two notes for $921.75 and $1,281.84, respectively, and also sued Roddy and C. A. Williams on a note for $1,612. These suits, by agreement of parties, were consolidated. Roddy, in addition to the general issue, filed a special plea to the effect that, the notes were delivered on a condition precedent to their effectiveness as legal obligations; in other words, were conditionally delivered. Defendant Williams adopted the answer of Roddy in so far as same was applicable to the case against him. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed a verdict for plaintiff, and judgment was rendered accordingly, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
Defendants, by appropriate assignments and propositions, complain of the action of the court in excluding the testimony of defendant Roddy, offered in support of the special plea, on the ground that the same would vary or contradict the terms of the notes.
The record discloses that Williams was Roddy's tenant, having charge of a farm near Copeville; that the parties did their banking business with plaintiff, having two accounts one the individual account of Roddy, the other in the name of C. A. Williams.
If permitted, Roddy would have testified in substance that, about January 1, 1926, he was requested by Mr. Bumpass, cashier of plaintiff bank, to come to Copeville, saying the bank wanted the J. J. Roddy and C. A. Williams accounts arranged and straightened out. When witness reached the bank, the cashier had the three notes in suit drawn, one for $921.75 for the individual account of Roddy, the other two represented the indebtedness of Williams. On being presented with these notes for his signature, witness objected, claiming that they were drawn for amounts in excess of the true indebtedness; that the cashier urged witness to sign the notes, stating that he was expecting a bank examiner and wanted to get the accounts in shape to avoid criticism, and assured witness that, if he would sign the notes, there would be an accounting later, and, if errors or overcharges existed — that is, if the notes, as drawn, were in excess of the real indebtedness, or included any sum for which Roddy was not liable as surety for Williams — corrections would be made and credits to correspond would be entered. With this understanding and, in order to accommodate the cashier, witness signed the notes, which would not have been done except for this agreement.
The excluded testimony tended to support defendants' theory; that is, that the notes were signed for a special purpose, with the understanding that an accounting would be had later, and all errors, if any existed, corrected and the notes reduced to correspond. This evidence, in our opinion, should have gone to the jury for what it was worth.
The Negotiable Instrument Act, art. 5932, § 16, in part, reads as follows:
"* * * As between immediate parties, and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the party making, drawing, accepting or endorsing, as the case may be; and in such case the delivery may be shown to have been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the instrument. * * *"
In the case of Waters v. Byers Bros. & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 233 S. W....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Wilson, 14052.
...See, also, McCartney v. McCartney, 93 Tex. 359, 55 S.W. 310; Skeen v. Skeen, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 379; Roddy v. Citizens' State Bank of Copeville, Tex.Civ. App., 11 S.W.2d 652; Holt v. Gordon, Tex.Civ.App., 176 S.W. 902; Farrar v. Holt, Tex.Civ.App., 178 S.W. As shown by plaintiff's plead......
-
Stinnette v. Mauldin
...88 S.W.2d 579, also see Mauritz v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 730 (Err.Ref.); Renfro v. Renfro, 80 S.W.2d 348; Roddy v. Citizens' State Bank of Copeville, 11 S.W.2d 652. See also the following statement in 17 Tex.Jur., page 'It is proper to admit testimony which merely shows the induceme......
-
First Nat. Bank in Dallas v. Walker
...execute the instrument. Kugle v. Traders' State Bank, 252 S.W. 208, 209 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1923, no writ) and Roddy v. Citizens' State Bank, 11 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1928, no We hold that the trial court did not err in admitting parol evidence to establish an oral ag......
-
Moser v. John F. Buckner & Sons
...ref.); Exum v. Mayfield, Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W. 607; Thomason v. Lee, Tex.Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 157 (er. ref.); Roddy v. Citizens' State Bank of Copeville, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 652; Stubblefield v. Cooper, Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 818 (er. dis.); Davis v. Jarnigan, Tex.Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 28......