Schlager v. Harris, 13-90-033-CV
| Decision Date | 28 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-90-033-CV,13-90-033-CV |
| Citation | 805 S.W.2d 893 |
| Parties | Peter SCHLAGER, Appellant, v. John T. HARRIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kelly K. McKinnis, McAllen, for appellant.
Thomas O. Matlock, Jr., McAllen, for appellee.
Before NYE, C.J., and SEERDEN and HINOJOSA, JJ.
This is a suit on a promissory note. Peter Schlager sued John Harris to collect on a note executed by Harris, payable to Schlager. Trial was to the court, and at the conclusion of Schlager's case, the court granted judgment for Harris. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Schlager alleged in his pleadings that he was the owner and holder of a promissory note that Harris had executed in the amount of $18,000.00 plus interest, that the note was due on February 28, 1987, that Harris had not paid the note, and that Schlager had made presentment and demand on Harris to pay the note. Harris filed a general denial, which was verified, and also specifically alleged the affirmative defense of failure of consideration. At trial, Schlager called Harris as his only witness; Harris admitted to signing the note in question. Schlager then introduced the note into evidence and rested his case. At that point, Harris moved for a directed verdict; the court granted his motion.
By his first point of error, Schlager alleges that the court erred in granting the directed verdict. Harris, though he appeared at oral argument, has not favored this Court with a brief.
In reviewing the propriety of a directed verdict in a non-jury trial, a trial court is presumed to have ruled on the sufficiency of the evidence; on appeal, the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment may be challenged as in any other non-jury case. Qantel Business Sys., Inc. v. Custom Controls Co., 761 S.W.2d 302, 305 (Tex.1988); Chase Commercial Corp. v. Datapoint Corp., 774 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1989, no writ). Tex.R.Civ.P. 93(7) requires that a party who denies the execution of any instrument in writing on which a pleading is founded must do so by a sworn denial. In the absence of such a verified plea, the instrument shall be received into evidence as fully proved. Gonzalez v. Nielson, 770 S.W.2d 99, 102 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). In an action by a holder of a promissory note against the maker, when execution of the note has not been properly denied, the introduction of the note in evidence makes a prima facie case for the holder. Shumway v. Horizon Creditcorp, 768 S.W.2d 387, 388-389 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ). Possession of the note at time of suit when no marks or endorsements on the note show payment is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Escalante v. Luckie
...Inc., supra at 675; Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Haugland, 973 S.W.2d 394, 399 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1998, pet'n den'd); Schlager v. Harris, 805 S.W.2d 893, 894 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no writ). Myers and Escalante both testified that nothing was paid on Note 3. Myers testified that t......
-
Andrews v. Sullivan
...sign for herself as a party to the contract and appellee was not required to prove Clarence's authority to sign for Zella. Schlager v. Harris, 805 S.W.2d 893, 894 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no writ); Godfrey v. Central State Bank, 5 S.W.2d 529, 537 (Tex.Civ. App.-Eastland 1928), rev'd o......
-
Knowles v. Dunham
...Those cases involved either judgments rendered after the completion of a trial or judgments involving a claim on a note. See Schalager v. Harris, 805 S.W.2d 893, 894 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991, no writ) (trial on note); Harrison v. Leasing Assoc., Inc., 454 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Tex. Civ. Ap......