Hammer v. Garrett

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hammer v. Garrett

218 S.W. 812, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 114

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 10, 1920

DocketNo. 8247.

StatusPublished

This text of 218 S.W. 812 (Hammer v. Garrett) 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

Hammer v. Garrett, 218 S.W. 812, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 114 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

RAINEX, C. J.

Suit on a negotiable note by appellee, seeking to recover on a note for $100, interest, and attorney’s fees, as shown by the statement of facts. Defendant C. X. Hammer answered that the note was altered ■by the consent of one of the payees without his knowledge or consent, and that he was not liable thereon. Brackett, the other defend.ant, has not appealed. Judgment was instructed for appellee. The jury returned a verdict for appellee, and judgment entered accordingly.

The evidence without contradiction establishes the fact that appellee purchased the note before maturity, paying a valuable consideration, without notice of any defect or alteration, or any information thereof, and the court did not err in instructing a verdict for appellee. The other payee in the note not having appealed, appellant, Hammer, is bound by the note. Daniel on Neg. Inst.; Bank v. Milford, 200 S. W. 883; Vernon’s Sayles’ R. S. arts. 582-589; Landon v. Drug Co., 186 S. W. 434.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

RAINEX, C. J.

Suit on a negotiable note by appellee, seeking to recover on a note for $100, interest, and attorney’s fees, as shown by the statement of facts. Defendant C. X. Hammer answered that the note was altered ■by the consent of one of the payees without his knowledge or consent, and that he was not liable thereon. Brackett, the other defend.ant, has not appealed. Judgment was instructed for appellee. The jury returned a verdict for appellee, and judgment entered accordingly.

The evidence without contradiction establishes the fact that appellee purchased the note before maturity, paying a valuable consideration, without notice of any defect or alteration, or any information thereof, and the court did not err in instructing a verdict for appellee. The other payee in the note not having appealed, appellant, Hammer, is bound by the note. Daniel on Neg. Inst.; Bank v. Milford, 200 S. W. 883; Vernon’s Sayles’ R. S. arts. 582-589; Landon v. Drug Co., 186 S. W. 434.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 S.W. 812, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammer-v-garrett-texapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack