Jones v. Nix

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jones v. Nix

174 S.W. 685, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 226

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 2, 1915

DocketNo. 702.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 174 S.W. 685 (Jones v. Nix) 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

Jones v. Nix, 174 S.W. 685, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 226 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinions

HALL, J.

Inspection of the record shows that the same questions are involved here as were considered and decided in the case of Charles R. Jones v. D. A. Abernathy, 174 S. W. 6S2, in which an opinion was handed down November 21, 1914. ■ Here the suit was by Jones against Nix upon one of the collateral notes mentioned in the Abernathy Case. The court peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was entered accordingly.

We have reviewed the authorities cited in the briefs of the parties. Having heretofore held in the Abernathy Case that, by reason of the provisions of the stock and bond law (Vernon’s Sayles’ Civil Statutes, arts. 6717 to 6732), the original note for $28,000 was absolutely void, and that appellant, as the holder of the collateral notes, was not entitled to recover against the several makers thereof, because the invalidity of the principal debt bars all right of the holder thereof to collect the collaterals in his hands, the judgment is affirmed.

HENDRICKS, J., not sitting.

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

HALL, J.

Inspection of the record shows that the same questions are involved here as were considered and decided in the case of Charles R. Jones v. D. A. Abernathy, 174 S. W. 6S2, in which an opinion was handed down November 21, 1914. ■ Here the suit was by Jones against Nix upon one of the collateral notes mentioned in the Abernathy Case. The court peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was entered accordingly.

We have reviewed the authorities cited in the briefs of the parties. Having heretofore held in the Abernathy Case that, by reason of the provisions of the stock and bond law (Vernon’s Sayles’ Civil Statutes, arts. 6717 to 6732), the original note for $28,000 was absolutely void, and that appellant, as the holder of the collateral notes, was not entitled to recover against the several makers thereof, because the invalidity of the principal debt bars all right of the holder thereof to collect the collaterals in his hands, the judgment is affirmed.

HENDRICKS, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.W. 685, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-nix-texapp-1915.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack