Thompson v. Republic Acceptance Corp.

Texas Supreme Court

Thompson v. Republic Acceptance Corp.

388 S.W.2d 404

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 10, 1965

DocketA-10568

StatusPublished

Cited by37 cases

This text of 388 S.W.2d 404 (Thompson v. Republic Acceptance Corp.) 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

Thompson v. Republic Acceptance Corp., 388 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The opinion by the majority in the Court of Civil Appeals has correctly held that a promissory note payable “in Austin” is a contract in writing that is performable in Travis County, Texas. Republic Acceptance Corporation v. Thompson, 384 S.W.2d 792. The opinion is subject to the interpretation, however, that one who relies upon subdivision 5, Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., need not introduce into evidence the written document relied upon. The writing relied upon must be proved. The fact that defendant Thompson did not deny execution under oath excused proof of execution, but the terms of the note must still be proved. Davis v. Marshall, 25 Tex. 372 (1860); Able v. Chandler, Adm’r, 12 Tex. 88 (1854). There is no statement of facts and ordinarily we would presume that the facts proved support the judgment. Mays v. Pierce, 154 Tex. 487, 489, 281 S.W.2d 79, 82 (1955). However, petitioner has no point that the note which was attached to the pleadings was not introduced in evidence. He has, in fact, briefed the case upon the basis that it was introduced into evidence. The Court of Civil Appeals has reached the right result on the only points which petitioner has raised by his assignments in his application. City of Deer Park v. State, ex rel. Shell Oil Co., etc., 154 Tex. 174, 275 S.W.2d 77, 84 (1954). We accordingly refuse the application for writ of error, no reversible error. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

PER CURIAM.

The opinion by the majority in the Court of Civil Appeals has correctly held that a promissory note payable “in Austin” is a contract in writing that is performable in Travis County, Texas. Republic Acceptance Corporation v. Thompson, 384 S.W.2d 792. The opinion is subject to the interpretation, however, that one who relies upon subdivision 5, Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., need not introduce into evidence the written document relied upon. The writing relied upon must be proved. The fact that defendant Thompson did not deny execution under oath excused proof of execution, but the terms of the note must still be proved. Davis v. Marshall, 25 Tex. 372 (1860); Able v. Chandler, Adm’r, 12 Tex. 88 (1854). There is no statement of facts and ordinarily we would presume that the facts proved support the judgment. Mays v. Pierce, 154 Tex. 487, 489, 281 S.W.2d 79, 82 (1955). However, petitioner has no point that the note which was attached to the pleadings was not introduced in evidence. He has, in fact, briefed the case upon the basis that it was introduced into evidence. The Court of Civil Appeals has reached the right result on the only points which petitioner has raised by his assignments in his application. City of Deer Park v. State, ex rel. Shell Oil Co., etc., 154 Tex. 174, 275 S.W.2d 77, 84 (1954). We accordingly refuse the application for writ of error, no reversible error. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 S.W.2d 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-republic-acceptance-corp-tex-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack