Tutt v. Thornton
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Cooke. Tried below before the Hon. J. A. Carroll. On October 18, 1875, W. T. Thornton sued M. R. Tutt to recover on a note dated April 19, 1871, for §450, payable to the order of Henry Heckler, and signed by Tutt. Thornton wrote his name across the back of the note before its delivery to Heckler; subsequently he paid Heckler the amount of the note, and it was transferred to him.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cooke. Tried below before the Hon. J. A. Carroll. On October 18, 1875, W. T. Thornton sued M. R. Tutt to recover on a note dated April 19, 1871, for §450, payable to the order of Henry Heckler, and signed by Tutt. Thornton wrote his name across the back of the note before its delivery to Heckler; subsequently he paid Heckler the amount of the note, and it was transferred to him. Tutt answered by plea of non est factum, and other defenses not material to the disposition of the appeal. Hpon the trial the execution of the note by Tutt was sufficiently established, but appellant…
1Opinion of the Court
Watts, J. Com. App.
To affect the validity of a note, the alteration complained of must be in some material matter; that is, it must be in such particular as would change the form of the obligation, confuse the evidence, or in some way affect the obligation of the parties to the instrument. Read v. Roark, 14 Tex. 330; Muckleroy v. Bethany, 23 Tex., 163; Daniels on Negotiable Instruments, Vol. 2, p. 363, etc. Here the erasing of the name of the appellee from the back of the note is claimed to be such an alteration as would discharge the appellant.
There is nothing in the record showing when or…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Holliman v. RogersTexas Supreme Court · 1851
- Sublett v. McKinneyTexas Supreme Court · 1857
- Muckleroy v. BethanyTexas Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by15 opinions
- Faires v. CockerellTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- Fox v. KroegerTexas Supreme Court · 1931
- Carpenter v. MinterTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- McClure v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1898
- Rush v. BishopTexas Supreme Court · 1883
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.