Legal Opinion

Brinker v. First Nat. Bank of Cleveland

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 20, 1929No. 7345PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMeOBENDON, C. J.

March 1, 1925, Tur-ley, AVear, and Brinker signed a promissory note for $1,890, payable to appellee bank. Wear died, and the bank sued Turley and Brinker on the note. Turley did not defend. Brinker set up two defenses: (1) That he was only an accommodation maker for the payee bank; and (2) that he was a surety on the note, and the bank had without his consent granted Turley several binding extensions of the due date of the debt. The judgment was upon a directed verdict in favor of the bank for the full amount of the note against Turley and Brinker. The latter has appealed.

The only evidence…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. German American State Bank v. WatsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917
  2. Skagit State Bank v. MoodyWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Commonwealth Nat. Bank of Dallas v. GoldsteinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  4. Nalitzky v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1916
  5. Magill v. McCamleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Brinker v. First Nat. Bank of ClevelandTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  2. Robertson v. City National Bank of BowieTexas Supreme Court · 1931
  3. First Nat. Bank of Fort Worth v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1943
  4. Paden v. American State Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1937
  5. Smith v. First Pasadena State BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API