Thompson v. Cartwright
| Decision Date | 31 December 1846 |
| Citation | 1 Tex. 87 |
| Parties | B. J. THOMPSON v. M. CARTWRIGHT |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Appeal from San Augustine County.
The person who appears to be the legal holder of a promissory note may maintain an action upon it in his own name, although the actual ownership is in another. [ Post, 184; 2 Tex. 397;4 Id. 46;5 Id. 171;6 Id. 153, 515;11 Id. 142;15 Id. 44;1 Id. 172; 26. Id. 673; 28 Id. 622.]
The mere naked fact of the plaintiff not being the real owner of the note is not a matter of defense at law, either by plea in bar or in abatement.
A case might occur in which the maker of the note ought to be allowed to prove the actual ownership, for the purpose of letting in any defense between himself and the person having the beneficial interest, but such defense could not be made under a plea in abatement, it must be specially alleged in the answer. [[[[
In equity the party in interest must sue.
Suit on promissory note. Answer, general denial.
Ardrey and Payne, for appellant.
J. Webb, for appellee.
This was an action on a promissory note by the payee against the maker. The only question worthy of consideration is presented by the bill of exceptions. The appellant in the court below answered fully, negativing the plaintiff's petition, the answer corresponding with the general issue in its effects, according to the common law rules of pleading. After the plaintiff had closed his testimony, the defendant offered to prove that the plaintiff in the action was not the owner of the note sued on, but his testimony was rejected by the judge, to which the defendant excepted. There is no doubt, where the payee of a note has disposed of his interest in it without a transfer and still holds possession, that a case might occur in which the maker ought to be allowed to prove the fact, for the purpose of letting in any defense arising between himself and the person having the beneficial interest in the note; and under our system of jurisprudence, defenses of that character could be made available in an action like the one under consideration; not, however, by a plea in abatement, but by setting up such matter of defense specially in the answer. The mere naked fact of the plaintiff not being the real owner of the note would not be matter of defense, either in bar or in abatement. It not unfrequently happens in the course of business that a suit at law is brought by the legal holder, when the interest is in another; and this practice is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City State Bank in Wellington v. National Bank of Commerce of Altus, Okl.
...273 S.W. 1022; Felthouse Lumber Co. v. Tijerina, Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 732. One who appears to be the legal holder may sue. Thompson v. Cartwright, 1 Tex. 87; McMillan v. Croft, 2 Tex. 397; Hays v. Cage, 2 Tex. 501; Andrews v. Hoxie, 5 Tex. 171. And it is immaterial whether any considera......
-
Ormsby v. Ratcliff
...resist payment on the ground that such holder is not in fact the owner, but that in equity it belongs to another. Thompson v. Cartwright, 1 Tex. 87, 46 Am. Dec. 95; McMillan v. Croft, 2 Tex. 397, 398; Fowler v. Willis, 4 Tex. 47, 48; Andrews v. Hoxie, 5 Tex. 171, 183; De Cordova v. Atchison......
-
Mauritz v. Schwind
...another action, on the same note. The enquiry, who was the real owner, could only have been a matter of idle curiosity." Thompson v. Cartwright, 1 Tex. 87, 46 Am.Dec. 95. "It cannot be questioned that the assignment of the note by the payee, passed to the plaintiff, as assignee, the legal t......
-
Neyland v. Lanier
...of a promissory note, may maintain an action upon it in his own name, although the actual ownership is in another. Thompson v. Cartwright, 1 Tex. 87, 46 Am. Dec. 95; Butler v. Robertson, 11 Tex. 142; Barnett v. Logue, 29 Tex. 282; Rodgers v. Bass, 46 Tex. 505; Andrews v. Hoxie, 5 Tex. 171; ......