Halbert v. Toyah Valley Bank

Court of Appeals of Texas

Halbert v. Toyah Valley Bank

175 S.W. 508, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 377

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 18, 1915

DocketNo. 416.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 S.W. 508 (Halbert v. Toyah Valley Bank) 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

Halbert v. Toyah Valley Bank, 175 S.W. 508, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 377 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

WALTHALL, J.

In this case, the plaintiffs R. P. Head, R. H. King, W. B. Vanderen, E. P. Stuckler, J. E. Meier, and J. H. Wolverton, representing themselves as copartners in trade and doing business under the firm name and style of Toyah Valley Bank, brought this suit in the county court of Reeves county, against the appellant, W. C. Halbert, on a past-due promissory note in the sum of $642.45, and admitting two payments thereon aggregating $325, and alleging that appellant, to secure said note, had executed and delivered to them a chattel mort *509 gage on certain personal property described. Plaintiffs prayed judgment for tbe amount due, interest and attorney’s fees provided for in tbe note, and foreclosure of tbe chattel mortgage lien, and general and special relief. Appellant answered by general and special exception, and general denial, and filed and presented to tbe court a motion for a continuance. Tbe court overruled tbe motion to continue, made no order on the exceptions, and entered judgment for plaintiffs against defendant for the balance due on tbe note, interest, attorney’s fees and costs, and ordered a foreclosure of tbe chattel mortgage lien.

No briefs have been filed, and therefore tbe assignments of error as they appear in tbe record cannot be considered. There is no error of law apparent upon tbe record. Tbe judgment is one that could legally have been rendered in tbe lower court, and tbe case is affirmed.

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

WALTHALL, J.

In this case, the plaintiffs R. P. Head, R. H. King, W. B. Vanderen, E. P. Stuckler, J. E. Meier, and J. H. Wolverton, representing themselves as copartners in trade and doing business under the firm name and style of Toyah Valley Bank, brought this suit in the county court of Reeves county, against the appellant, W. C. Halbert, on a past-due promissory note in the sum of $642.45, and admitting two payments thereon aggregating $325, and alleging that appellant, to secure said note, had executed and delivered to them a chattel mort *509 gage on certain personal property described. Plaintiffs prayed judgment for tbe amount due, interest and attorney’s fees provided for in tbe note, and foreclosure of tbe chattel mortgage lien, and general and special relief. Appellant answered by general and special exception, and general denial, and filed and presented to tbe court a motion for a continuance. Tbe court overruled tbe motion to continue, made no order on the exceptions, and entered judgment for plaintiffs against defendant for the balance due on tbe note, interest, attorney’s fees and costs, and ordered a foreclosure of tbe chattel mortgage lien.

No briefs have been filed, and therefore tbe assignments of error as they appear in tbe record cannot be considered. There is no error of law apparent upon tbe record. Tbe judgment is one that could legally have been rendered in tbe lower court, and tbe case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.W. 508, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halbert-v-toyah-valley-bank-texapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack