Wooldridge v. Groos Nat. Bank
Decision Date | 24 July 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 6105,6105 |
Citation | 603 S.W.2d 335 |
Parties | 29 UCC Rep.Serv. 1548 Grady E. WOOLDRIDGE, Appellant, v. The GROOS NATIONAL BANK, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John T. Anderson, G. Michael Lawrence, Graves, Dougherty, Hearon, Moody & Garwood, Austin, for appellant.
William A. Jeffers, Jr., Thomas H. Crofts, Jr., Groce, Locke & Hebdon, San Antonio, for appellee.
The defendant, Grady E. Wooldridge, appeals from a summary judgment awarding the plaintiff, The Groos National Bank, recovery against him on a past due note in the principal sum of $73,681.97. Defendant is maker of the note and plaintiff Bank is payee. The note was executed on December 9, 1977, and it was due 120 days thereafter. Attorney's fees contracted for in the note were also awarded to Bank in the judgment, but they are supported by the parties' written stipulation and they are not the subject of complaint on this appeal.
To establish its right to the summary judgment, Bank had the burden of showing that no material fact issues existed in the case and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Town North Nat. Bank v. Broaddus, (Tex. 1978), 569 S.W.2d 489, 494.
Viewed alone, Bank's pleadings and motion and supporting proof, and the stipulation on attorney's fees, support the summary judgment. Defendant does not dispute that. His contentions on appeal are these:
1. The summary judgment evidence raised an issue of fact concerning his defense that consideration for the note failed.
2. An issue of fact was raised in the evidence concerning his defense that his execution of the note was induced by fraud.
3. The trial court erred in failing to consider his second amended original answer, or, if the court considered the answer, then it erred in granting the summary judgment because the answer was supported by defendant's affidavit and it raised the defense that the execution of the note was induced by fraud.
A detailed chronological listing of the proceedings in the trial court is necessary for an understanding of the parties' contentions.
Bank filed its original petition on June 21, 1978. Defendant filed his original answer, a general denial, on July 21, 1978. On September 20, 1978, Bank filed its motion for summary judgment. The motion was supported by the affidavit of Bank's assistant vice-president, Keith Paul Champagne, which incorporated an attached copy of the note.
On October 11, 1978, defendant filed his First Amended Original Answer, his Motion In Opposition To Summary Judgment, and his affidavit in support of the motion. The amended answer contained a general denial and the following special plea:
The allegations in defendant's Motion In Opposition To Summary Judgment were these:
Defendant's Affidavit attached to and filed in support of the Motion In Opposition To Summary Judgment set forth these facts:
On October 20, 1978, after a hearing on the parties' motions, the court orally granted Bank's motion for summary judgment and made the following notation on the inside page of the file jacket of the case:
On November 13, 1978, Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Wilson
...when decision is officially announced, either orally in open court or by memorandum filed with clerk. Wooldridge v. Groos Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ. App., 603 S.W.2d 335, 344 [Tex.Civ.App. 1980]. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1296 (6th ed.1990). The distinction carries no difference in this The Federal R......
-
Spacek v. Charles
...expressly raised and proof actually presented to the trial court by the parties in their written motions and responses. Wooldridge v. Groos Nat. Bank, 603 S.W.2d 335, 344 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1980, no writ) (emphasis Charles asserts that Ingraham, Fee, and other corporal punishment cases cit......
-
Murphy v. McDermott Inc.
...writ ref'd n.r.e.); Cottrell v. Carrillon Assoc., 646 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ); Wooldridge v. Groos Nat'l Bank, 603 S.W.2d 335, 341-42 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco, 1980, no writ). Appellee's reliance on these cases is Three of those cases involved an attempt by ......
-
Linder v. Valero Transmission Co.
...or appellate court to determine questions of law or fact which could have been raised by the nonmovant, but were not. Wooldridge v. Groos National Bank, 603 S.W.2d 335, 344, (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1980, no In its motion for summary judgment, Valero asserted that Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 1436......