Grant v. Burleson, Patterson & Co.
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Walker. Tried below before the Hon. J. R. Burnett. Suit instituted in the County Court of Walker county by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error on the instrument set out in the opinion. Judgment went against the plaintiffs in that case, because the instrument was sued on as a moneyed demand, and the value of the cash note, which was the primary element of the promise, was not alleged and therefore not proven.
Read the full summary
Error from Walker. Tried below before the Hon. J. R. Burnett. Suit instituted in the County Court of Walker county by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error on the instrument set out in the opinion. Judgment went against the plaintiffs in that case, because the instrument was sued on as a moneyed demand, and the value of the cash note, which was the primary element of the promise, was not alleged and therefore not proven. The case was taken to the District Court by appeal, where the petition was amended, and the value of a good, solvent, cash note, due the estate of A. G.…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
This case was before us at the last term, and we might perhaps be justified in saying that everything now before us worthy of consideration is res judicata. In Ward & Martin v: Bagby & Co., 2 Texas, 249, Judge Lipscomb, in delivering the opinion of the court, where suit was brought on the following instrument: “ One day after date we promise to pay Latimer, Bagby & Co. $464.29 in cash notes, due since the first day of January, 1845, for value received of them,” held that a promise to pay “in cash notes ” is not equivalent to a promise to pay the nominal amount in money.
In a suit upon a note…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ward v. LattimerTexas Supreme Court · 1847
3Cited by1 opinion
- Patterson v. KirkpatrickCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916