Murray v. Able

19 Tex. 213
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1857·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Roberts, J.

Able sues for the use of Mills & Jockusch, on notes given to Able in the purchase of land, and the vendor’s lien on the land is expressly reserved in the notes. The petition, seeking to enforce the lien, is excepted to, because the notes being transferred for value, and being payable to bearer, the lien did not pass with the notes to Mills & Jockusch.

It has been decided that a party holding a negotiable note, under a written indorsement from the payee, has acquired and may enforce the vendor’s lien. (1 Moore v. Raymond, 15 Tex. R. 554.) At this Term of the Court, the same has been decided in favor of one holding a note payable to bearer.

This having, until lately, been considered a doubtful question, and having been raised and relied on below, judgment will be affirmed without damages.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Murray v. Able, 19 Tex. 213 (Tex. 1857).

19 Tex. 213 (Murray v. Able) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First Nat. Bank of Quitaque v. Pointer
51 S.W.2d 781 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Davis v. Huff
288 S.W. 267 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Concrete Inv. Co.
201 S.W. 718 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
H. & T. C. R'y Co. v. Bremond
18 S.W. 448 (Texas Supreme Court, 1886)
Flanagan v. Cushman
48 Tex. 241 (Texas Supreme Court, 1877)
Cannon v. McDaniel
46 Tex. 303 (Texas Supreme Court, 1876)
White, Smith & Baldwin v. Downs
40 Tex. 225 (Texas Supreme Court, 1874)
Sheppard v. Thomas
26 Ark. 617 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1871)