Whitesboro Nat. Bank v. Wells

• Decision Date: 13 December 1944
• Docket Number: No. A-288.,A-288.
• Parties: WHITESBORO NAT. BANK v. WELLS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

184 S.W.2d 276

WHITESBORO NAT. BANK v. WELLS.

No. A-288.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December 13, 1944.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Eighth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by the Whitesboro National Bank against Mrs. W. N. Wells. Judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, 182 S.W.2d 516, and plaintiff brings error.

Judgments of lower courts affirmed.

Jesse F. Holt, of Sherman, for petitioner.

Olan R. Van Zandt, of Tioga, for respondent.

SLATTON, Commissioner.

The controversy in this court concerns a promissory note which was executed by Mrs. Wells to petitioner bank in the principal sum of $2,500. With regard to this note the jury found: (1) That Mrs. Wells did not know at the time of executing the note that it was to be used by the bank as an apparent asset; (2) she did not know at the time of executing the note that it was to be used by the bank to cover shortages in the assets of said bank; (3) that said note was placed among the assets of said bank and was relied upon as such by bank examiners and others interested in said bank; (4) that Mrs. Wells did not receive anything of value for executing said note.

The trial court denied the bank any recovery on the note. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the El Paso Court of Civil Appeals. 182 S.W.2d 516.

The bank seeks to reverse the judgment of the lower courts on two grounds: First, it says that Mrs. Wells is not an accommodation maker of the note because the president of the bank, a few days after she executed her note to the bank, gave to Mrs. Wells his personal note for the same amount as the note in suit, which was secured by stock in the petitioner bank. The only evidence in the record with reference to the transaction between Mrs. Wells and the president of the bank is the testimony of Mrs. Wells. It cannot be said as a matter of law that the transaction with regard to the president of the bank giving his personal note, together with shares of stock as collateral to Mrs. Wells, a few days after Mrs. Wells executed and delivered the note in suit, had the effect of changing the status of Mrs. Wells from an accommodation maker to that of a maker for value. The evidence of Mrs. Wells is sufficient to support the inference that the president delivered his personal note and collateral to Mrs. Wells for the purpose of relieving her of any chance of loss in lending her credit to the bank. In the absence of a jury finding to the contrary, it cannot be...