Bell v. Texas Military College

Court of Appeals of Texas

Bell v. Texas Military College

91 S.W.2d 868, 1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 109

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 6, 1936

DocketNo. 13333.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 S.W.2d 868 (Bell v. Texas Military College) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Texas Military College, 91 S.W.2d 868, 1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 109 (Tex. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

DUNKLIN, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted against J. M. Bell in the county court of Kaufman county on a promissory note, with the name of defendant signed thereto, and stipulating for payment in Kaufman county.

The defendant filed a plea of privilege, alleging his residence in Hall county, and denying that the note sued on had been executed by him. A controverting affidavit was filed by plaintiff, in which it was alleged that, if defendant did not execute the note, his name was sighed thereto by his wife, with his consent, and thereafter ratified by him. Upon a hearing, the note was introduced in evidence, and testimony of the defendant himself showed that, while he'did not himself execute it, he knew within a few days thereafter that his wife had signed his name thereto and did not thereafter notify the plaintiff that he repudiated the signature. Further, there was introduced in evidence a letter written by the defendant acknowledging' the note as his obligation and promising payment at a later date.

Such being the record, it is clear that the trial judge did not err in overruling the plea of privilege; and his judgment in so doing is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DUNKLIN, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted against J. M. Bell in the county court of Kaufman county on a promissory note, with the name of defendant signed thereto, and stipulating for payment in Kaufman county.

The defendant filed a plea of privilege, alleging his residence in Hall county, and denying that the note sued on had been executed by him. A controverting affidavit was filed by plaintiff, in which it was alleged that, if defendant did not execute the note, his name was sighed thereto by his wife, with his consent, and thereafter ratified by him. Upon a hearing, the note was introduced in evidence, and testimony of the defendant himself showed that, while he'did not himself execute it, he knew within a few days thereafter that his wife had signed his name thereto and did not thereafter notify the plaintiff that he repudiated the signature. Further, there was introduced in evidence a letter written by the defendant acknowledging' the note as his obligation and promising payment at a later date.

Such being the record, it is clear that the trial judge did not err in overruling the plea of privilege; and his judgment in so doing is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.W.2d 868, 1936 Tex. App. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-texas-military-college-texapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack