Holland v. Cook
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Panola. The plaintiff below (wbo was defendant in error) re■covered judgment by default, against the defendants (plaintiffs in error) on a promissory note. The petition set out the face of the note and claimed the :amonnt due, without tiie mention of any credits.
Read the full summary
Error from Panola. The plaintiff below (wbo was defendant in error) re■covered judgment by default, against the defendants (plaintiffs in error) on a promissory note. The petition set out the face of the note and claimed the :amonnt due, without tiie mention of any credits. Tiie record contained a copy •of the note, with tiie indorsements thereon, from which it appeared that there were payments credited upon the note which were not allowed in entering the judgment; and this was assigned as error.
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
Prima facie, the presumption must be that tiie credits indorsed upon tiie note were entered by the holder or with liis assent, and that they were just credits, to which the maker was entitled. But it is insisted that, as flic petition apprised the defendant that tiie suit was for the full amount of the face of the note, he should have made his defense and brought his credits to the attention of the court below, and that he cannot be now heard to object to the judgment on this ground. The question is not whether the defendant would be entitled to equitable relief against the judgment. If *123that…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Freeman v. Leasing Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1973
- Long v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Hayden Saddlery Hardware Co. v. Ramsay & FordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1896
- Hubb-Diggs Co. v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Love v. AllardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.