City Natl. Bank Galveston v. E. E. Mauldin

Court of Appeals of Texas

City Natl. Bank Galveston v. E. E. Mauldin

291 S.W. 292

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 26, 1927

DocketNo. 7073.

StatusPublished

This text of 291 S.W. 292 (City Natl. Bank Galveston v. E. E. Mauldin) 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

City Natl. Bank Galveston v. E. E. Mauldin, 291 S.W. 292 (Tex. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BLAIR, J.

Appellant sued appellee on his note for $200, alleging that it was a due course holder under indorsement of the Lometa State Bank, payee in the note. Appellee pleaded, and the jury found, that he paid the note before maturity to the Lometa Bank, appellant’s authorized agent to collect it, and judgment was rendered for appellee.

This suit grew out of the transaction fully set forth in cause No. 7075 (City National Bank of Galveston v. Earl Pearce, 291 S. W. 291) this day decided by this court, wherein appellant loaned the Lometa State Bank $10,-000 on its note, collaterally secured with its customers’ notes aggregating $14,000, among which was that of appellee. The proof is undisputed that appellee paid the note sued or *293 to the Lometa State Bank before maturity, and the evidence conclusively sustains the jury’s finding that the said bank acted for appellant in ¡receiving the money for the note. The appeal involves the same questions determined against appellant in cause No. 7075, supra, and upon authority of that case we affirm this judgment.

Affirmed.

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

BLAIR, J.

Appellant sued appellee on his note for $200, alleging that it was a due course holder under indorsement of the Lometa State Bank, payee in the note. Appellee pleaded, and the jury found, that he paid the note before maturity to the Lometa Bank, appellant’s authorized agent to collect it, and judgment was rendered for appellee.

This suit grew out of the transaction fully set forth in cause No. 7075 (City National Bank of Galveston v. Earl Pearce, 291 S. W. 291) this day decided by this court, wherein appellant loaned the Lometa State Bank $10,-000 on its note, collaterally secured with its customers’ notes aggregating $14,000, among which was that of appellee. The proof is undisputed that appellee paid the note sued or *293 to the Lometa State Bank before maturity, and the evidence conclusively sustains the jury’s finding that the said bank acted for appellant in ¡receiving the money for the note. The appeal involves the same questions determined against appellant in cause No. 7075, supra, and upon authority of that case we affirm this judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 S.W. 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-natl-bank-galveston-v-e-e-mauldin-texapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack