Legal Opinion

Hammer v. Garrett

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 10, 1920No. 8247Published

1Opinion of the CourtRainex, C. J.

Suit on a negotiable note by appellee, seeking to recover on a note for $100, interest, and attorney’s fees, as shown by the statement of facts. Defendant C. X. Hammer answered that the note was altered ■by the consent of one of the payees without his knowledge or consent, and that he was not liable thereon. Brackett, the other defend.ant, has not appealed. Judgment was instructed for appellee. The jury returned a verdict for appellee, and judgment entered accordingly.

The evidence without contradiction establishes the fact that appellee purchased the note before maturity, paying a valuable…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Landon v. Foster Drug Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1916
  2. Iowa City State Bank v. MilfordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API