Hall & Tyson v. First National Bank of Covington

116 S.W. 43, 102 Tex. 308, 1909 Tex. LEXIS 144
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 24, 1909
DocketApplication No. 6213.
StatusPublished
Cited by38 cases

This text of 116 S.W. 43 (Hall & Tyson v. First National Bank of Covington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hall & Tyson v. First National Bank of Covington, 116 S.W. 43, 102 Tex. 308, 1909 Tex. LEXIS 144 (Tex. 1909).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Williams

delivered the opinion of the court.

For reasons given in the opinion this day filed in the case of The Royal Insurance Company against The Texas & Gulf Railway Company, we think the Court of Civil Appeals erred in refusing to consider the statement of facts copied into the record. This case is further like that, in that only questions of law are raised in the appeal, which may be disposed of by this court in connection with the statement of facts without emanding the cause to the Court of Civil Appeals. The question which the Court of Civil Appeals declined to decide for want of a statement of facts arises in an assignment upon the action of the trial court in instructing a verdict for plaintiff. The action was upon two promissory notes, executed by the defendants, payable to the James & Mayer Buggy Company or order, and assigned before maturity to the plaintiff bank for a valuable consideration. The question made is whether or not the defendants adduced sufficient evidence tending to show notice to the bank, before its purchase of the notes, of the defense alleged against the Buggy Company, to entitle defendants to a submission of that issue to the jury. We have examined the evidence, and find that the circumstances relied on are wholly insufficient for the purpose, which leads to the conclusion that the trial court’s instruction was correct. The only other question was correctly decided by the Court of Civil Appeals, the uncontradicted evidence plainly showing the endorsement and transfer of the notes to the bank before maturity.

Application refused.

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

Related

Stafford v. Little
730 S.W.2d 162 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Batchelor v. Batchelor
634 S.W.2d 71 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Anderson v. Gilliland
624 S.W.2d 243 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Faglie v. Williams
569 S.W.2d 557 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Tindol v. McCoy
535 S.W.2d 745 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Adcock v. King
520 S.W.2d 418 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Dean v. Goldwire
480 S.W.2d 494 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Wells v. Hames
464 S.W.2d 393 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Meador v. Ivy
390 S.W.2d 391 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Burton v. Bell
380 S.W.2d 561 (Texas Supreme Court, 1964)
Keene v. Keene
371 P.2d 329 (California Supreme Court, 1962)
Parr v. Duval County
304 S.W.2d 957 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1957)
Cline v. Festersen
275 P.2d 149 (California Court of Appeal, 1954)
Hyman v. Hyman
275 S.W.2d 149 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Tolle v. Sawtelle
246 S.W.2d 916 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
Hill v. Estate of Westbrook
213 P.2d 727 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Torres v. Roldán
67 P.R. 342 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1947)
Lovell v. Lovell
202 S.W.2d 291 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1947)
Vallera v. Vallera
148 P.2d 694 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 S.W. 43, 102 Tex. 308, 1909 Tex. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-tyson-v-first-national-bank-of-covington-tex-1909.