Home/Texas Supreme Court/Universal Metals & MacHinery, Inc. v. Bohart

Universal Metals & MacHinery, Inc. v. Bohart

539 S.W.2d 874, 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 891, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 360, 1976 Tex. LEXIS 224
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 23, 1976
DocketB-5351
StatusPublished
Cited by97 cases

This text of 539 S.W.2d 874 (Universal Metals & MacHinery, Inc. v. Bohart) 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
Universal Metals & MacHinery, Inc. v. Bohart, 539 S.W.2d 874, 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 891, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 360, 1976 Tex. LEXIS 224 (Tex. 1976).

Opinions

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

POPE, Justice.

Universal Metals and a number of amicus curiae briefs forcefully urge that this court did not give Article 1302-2.09 its intended meaning by our original opinion. We are convinced that we were wrong in holding that the Boharts were not guarantors within the meaning of that statute and that they could assert their claim for usury. We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our former opinion, set aside our former judgment, and substitute this opinion for our former one.

Universal Metals & Machinery, Inc., hereafter called Universal, instituted this suit against James T. Bohart and his wife Jean Bohart, to recover $219,000 which was the unpaid principal on a promissory note. Universal sought judgment against the Bo-harts on the legal theory that they were primary obligors under their guaranty agreement. A jury found that the purported maker’s signature on the promissory note which the Boharts guaranteed was a forgery. The trial court rendered judgment for Universal as the holder-payee against the Boharts and that court also denied the Boharts’ counterclaim that Universal charged them usurious interest. The court of civil appeals, with a divided court, reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment that Universal take nothing. 523 S.W.2d 279. We reverse the judgment of the court of civil appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Universal sold and delivered some machinery to Beneficiadora de Minerales de Tlaxcala, S.A., a Mexican corporation hereafter called BMT. The Boharts owned a large proportion of the stock in the corporation and also owned all of the stock in a corporation which held the exclusive sales rights to BMT’s production. The machinery had already been shipped to BMT in [876]*876Mexico when on November 1, 1971⅛ the Boharts signed the instrument which is the basis of this suit. In relevant parts the instrument was:

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

Related

Stanley C. Nwokenkwo, Individually, Adwumi Adeniyi, Individually, and Oluwatoyin Adeniyi, Individually v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
423 Colony, Ltd. v. the Independent Executors of the Estate of Peter C. Kern, Dan Flagg, John Cochran, and Ben Lipman
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
Norris v. Tex. Dev. Co.
547 S.W.3d 656 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018)
Hassan Chahadeh, M.D. v. Jacinto Medical Group, P.A. and Paradise Marketing and Consulting, L. P.
519 S.W.3d 242 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2017)
Cash Biz, LP, Redwood Financial, LLC, Cash Zone, LLC Dba Cash Biz v. Hiawatha Henry, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and Roosevelt Coleman Jr.
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Javier Sanchez-Campuz
519 F. App'x 219 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
In Re Perry
425 B.R. 323 (S.D. Texas, 2010)
First Commerce Bank v. J.V.3, Inc.
165 S.W.3d 366 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Escalante v. Luckie
77 S.W.3d 410 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Krum v. Reece Supply Company
79 S.W.3d 615 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
El Paso Refining, Inc. v. Scurlock Permian Corp.
77 S.W.3d 374 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Windham v. Cal-Tim, Ltd.
47 S.W.3d 846 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Insurance Co. of North America v. Morris
981 S.W.2d 667 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Cox v. Lerman
949 S.W.2d 527 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bosler
906 S.W.2d 635 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Sterling Property Management, Inc. v. Texas Commerce Bank
Fifth Circuit, 1994
Long v. NCNB-Texas National Bank
882 S.W.2d 861 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Joseph Thomas, Inc. v. Graham
842 S.W.2d 343 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
In the Matter of Corland Corporation, Debtor. James L. Stephenson, and United Bank, N.A., Cross-Appellees v. Duke Salisbury, Cross-Appellant
967 F.2d 1069 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
539 S.W.2d 874, 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 891, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 360, 1976 Tex. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/universal-metals-machinery-inc-v-bohart-tex-1976.