Legal Opinion

Hinckley v. Eggers

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided July 20, 1979No. 19740Published

1Opinion

On Second Motion for Rehearing

Appellee has filed second motion for rehearing, contending that § 3.105(a)(8) is the exception which prevents this note from being unconditional because the instrument “is limited to payment out of the entire assets of a partnership, unincorporated association, trust or estate by or on behalf of which the instrument is issued.” He argues the property securing payment of this note is the entire asset of the trust property, and therefore, the terms of the note are unconditional.

We disagree. We read Section 3.105(a)(8) to mean that a note may be negotiable even…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cont'nal Natl. Bk. of Ft. Worth v. ConnerTexas Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Charles Nelson Co. v. MortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  3. Kitzer v. KitzerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API