Legal Opinion

Cottle v. Sanders

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 27, 1931No. 4024PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The legal effect of the failure (before it was executed and delivered) to express in the note a time for the payment thereof was to make it payable on demand. Section 7, art. 5932, R.S. 1925. The legal effect of the alteration accomplished by adding the words, "On or before October 1st," was to change the due date of the note. Hence the alteration was a material one. Section 125, art. 5939, R.S. 1925. The legal effect of materially altering a negotiable instrument "without the assent of all parties liable thereon" is to avoid it, "except as against a party who has himself made, authorized or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kalteyer v. MitchellTexas Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Dewees v. BluntzerTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Burgess & Co. v. BlakeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
  4. Moore v. OrgainCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
  5. Ruiz v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Puckett v. Big Lake State BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
  2. Republic National Bank of Dallas v. StrealyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1961
  3. Clem Lumber Co. v. BarnettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942
  4. Cooper v. HamptonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  5. Puckett v. Big Lake State BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API