Brashear v. Martin
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. Peter W. Gray. Suit by T. L. Martin against Isaac W. Brashear, on a promissory note for $400, signed “Isaac W. Brashear, by G. I. Tilton, agent.” On the trial the plaintiff offered the note in evidence, to which the defendant objected, because no sufficient authority to make it had been shown, and there was no proof of Tilton’s handwriting; which objections were overruled. The note was read, and the defendant excepted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. Peter W. Gray. Suit by T. L. Martin against Isaac W. Brashear, on a promissory note for $400, signed “Isaac W. Brashear, by G. I. Tilton, agent.” On the trial the plaintiff offered the note in evidence, to which the defendant objected, because no sufficient authority to make it had been shown, and there was no proof of Tilton’s handwriting; which objections were overruled. The note was read, and the defendant excepted. The plea of non est factum by. the defendant was sworn to. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the note…
1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, J.
Under a plea of non est factum a note was admitted in evidence purporting to be signed by Brashear by his agent, Tilton. The note was objected to because Tilton’s authority, and the fact of its execution by Tilton, were not proved. It was perhaps sufficiently shown that Tilton had the authority to execute the note, but there was no evidence that the particular note sued on was executed by Tilton, or that it was in his handwriting. The only evidence on that subject was a general admission of Brashear that Tilton had executed a note for four or five hundred dollars.
■ Our statute required this…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Neil v. ShackelfordTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Connor v. Uvalde Nat. BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Conant Automobile Co. v. ManriquezTexas Commission of Appeals · 1928
- Connor v. Uvalde Nat. BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913