Legal Opinion
Commercial National Bank v. First National Bank
Texas Supreme Court
Decided May 12, 1904No. 1311PublishedCited by 13 opinions
Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the First District, in an appeal from De Witt County. The Cuero bank sued Smith and Bay on a note, joining the Beeville bank on account of representations made as to the genuineness of Bay’s signature. Plaintiff recovered against Smith and the Beeville bank, Bay getting free on his plea of non est factum. The Beeville bank appealed, and on affirmance obtained a writ of error from the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, Associate Justice.
We copy the statement of the case and conclusions of fact of the Court of Civil Appeals, as follows:
“This action was brought in the District Court of De Witt County by the appellee against W. H. Smith and J. F. Ray to recover upon a promissory note for the sum of $2066.66, dated November 27, 1901, payable at Cuero, Texas, and alleged to have been executed by them to the appellee. The appellee also made the appellant a party to the suit and sought to recover against it, alleging that the appellant had undertaken, as the agent of appellee, to have the note sued on…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. City Bank of ColumbusSupreme Court of the United States · 1859
- Weckler v. First National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- Houston & T. C. R. R. Co. v. McKinneyTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Crawford v. Boston Store Mercantile Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1896
3Cited by13 opinions
- United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. City of WacoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. National Bank of CommerceCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Union Deposit Co. v. MoseleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
- Eastin v. Bank of HarrisonvilleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923
- Farmers' State Guaranty Bank v. CromwellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.