Wybrants v. Lutch

24 Tex. 309
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 24 Tex. 309 (Wybrants v. Lutch) 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
Wybrants v. Lutch, 24 Tex. 309 (Tex. 1859).

Opinion

Bell, J.

The statement of facts contains an admission, in [310]*310distinct terms, that William B. Pillow and James B. Barry, were securities on the promissory note, which is the foundation of the suit. It is also clearly shown, that the payees of the note, entered into a written agreement with one of the principal obligors upon the note, by which it was distinctly stipulated, that the time of payment of the note should be extended beyond the time specified, and additional security, in the shape of a deed of trust, was furnished to the payees of the note. The securities, Pillow and Barry, had no knowledge of this agreement for an extension of the time of payment, until after the agreement was consummated. The cause was continued at the Fall Term, 1857, of the District Court, in pursuance of the agreement entered into between the payees of the note and J. M. Lutch, one of the principal obligors. The continuance was entered on the minutes of the court, as a continuance by consent; but it is shown, that the consent was between the attorney of the payees, and the attorney of the principals upon the note, and that the securities, Pillow and Barry, were not parties to the consent. And it is not shown, that the securities ever ratified the agreement for the extension of the time of payment, or consented to remain bound, after that agreement was made.

We are of opinion, that there is no error in the judgment of the court below. For the law of the case, it is only necessary to refer to the case of Burke and others v. Cruger and Moore, 8 Texas Rep. 66, where the subject is fully discussed. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Thompson v. Welders Supply Co.
82 S.W.2d 753 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Cruse v. Gau
193 S.W. 405 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Speer v. Rushing
183 S.W. 67 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Marshall National Bank v. Smith
77 S.W. 237 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1903)
Brown v. Fountain
22 S.W. 129 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1893)
Morris v. Booth
18 S.W. 639 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1892)
Babcock v. Milmo National Bank
1 White & W. 468 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1883)
Yeary v. Smith
45 Tex. 56 (Texas Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Tex. 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wybrants-v-lutch-tex-1859.