DeMuth v. Head

378 S.W.2d 389, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2151

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 6, 1964
• Docket: 16315
• Status: Published

Opinions

DIXON-, Chief Justice.

Appellant DeMuth brought suit against appellee Flossie O. Head individually alleging that appellee is indorser of a certain promissory note in the principal sum of $1,050.00. Summary judgment was rendered in favor of appellee.

A copy of the note is attached to appellant’s petition as an exhibit. The note was signed by Paskel A. Jones as maker and is payable to the order of Rags to Riches, Inc. The indorsement by which the note was sold and transferred to appellant DeMuth is signed as follows: “RAGS TO RICHES, INC. BY Flossie Head, President.”

| Appellee’s answer consists of a general denial and a verified specific denial that she executed the assignment of the note or that she guaranteed payment thereof.

Since appellee did not attach any affidavits' or :other proof to her motion for summary judgment, her motion is directed solely at the adequacy of appellant’s pleadings. Gibler v. Houston Post Co., Tex. Civ.App., 310 S.W.2d 377; Brownson v. New, Tex.Civ.App, 259 S.W.2d 277.

Though appellant alleged 'that appellee indorsed the note, the attached copy of the note shows very plainly that it was not indorsed by appellee Flossie Head, but was indorsed by Rags to Riches, Inc. In case of such a variance the instrument attached as an exhibit, not the allegations in the pleadings, must govern. Pyron v. Grinder, 25 Tex.Supp. 159, 160; Cawley v. Security State Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App, 126 S.W.2d 715; Paul v. Houston Oil Co, Tex.Civ.App, 211 S.W.2d 345.

In' his" supplemental petition appellant alleges that Rags to Riches, Inc. is hut the alter ego of appellee, Flossie Head. The allegation is immaterial in this case.

In Farrier v. Hopkins, 131 Tex. 75, 112 S.W.2d 182, the Commission of Appeals in an opinion adopted by the Supreme Court said that it is an ancient rule of law that as to instruments which at common law were required to be executed under seal and as to negotiable instruments parol evidence would not be permitted to bind those not a party to such instruments. The court further said, “They cannot be made the obligation of some one not a party by extrinsic proof, regardless of what are the real facts. * * * .parol proof to show liability of the real principal is inadmissible because 'tending to add to or alter the terms of the written instrument.” 'See also Frankfurt v. Wilson, Tex.Civ.App, 353 S.W.2d 490, 492; Dillon v. Bank of Texas, Tex.Civ.App, 346 S.W.2d 153; First State Bank of Riesel v. Dyer, Tex.Civ.App, 248 S.W.2d 785 (affirmed 151 Tex. 650, 254 S.W.2d 92); and Sheehan v. Hudman, Tex.Civ.App, 49 S.W.2d 953.

Rags to Riches, Inc. is shown by the note itself to be the indorser, not Flossie Head individually. Under the above authorities parol evidence is not admissible to show that Rags to Riches, Inc. was merely the alter ego of’ Flossie Head.

Appellant’s points on appeal are overruled. •

The- judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.