Son v. William G. Lane & Co.
Texas Supreme Court
■ Error from G-uadaloupe. The case was tried before Hon. A. "W. Terrell, one of the district judges. The suit was brought upon the 1st of October, 1858, upon a note in these words: “$1,000. Seguin, Nov. 1, 1857. “Eleven months after date, we or either of us, the subscribers, of Seguin, State of Texas, promise to pay to the order of Wm.
Read the full summary
■ Error from G-uadaloupe. The case was tried before Hon. A. "W. Terrell, one of the district judges. The suit was brought upon the 1st of October, 1858, upon a note in these words: “$1,000. Seguin, Nov. 1, 1857. “Eleven months after date, we or either of us, the subscribers, of Seguin, State of Texas, promise to pay to the order of Wm. G. Lane & Co. one thousand dollars, value received, at the office of Campbell & Son, with current exchange on Hew York, and all expenses of collection in ease of suit, with ten per cent, interest from date till paid. “Ho. —, due 4 Oct., 1858. “ Campbell & Son,…
1Opinion of the CourtEgberts, J.
—The note sued oh in this case appears, from the recitals in the petition, to have been a contract between merchant and merchant, and assignable and negotiable by law. The makers were entitled to three days of grace under our statute. (O. & W. Dig., Art. 99.) Being dated on the 1st day of November, 1857, and payable *96“ eleven months after date,” it was not due, including the three days of grace, until the 4th day of October, 1858; excluding them, it would be due on the 1st day of October. The suit was brought on the 1st day of October, 1858 ; which was certainly before any right of action had…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Douglass, Brown & Co. v. Neil & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1873
- Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chemical Lime, Ltd.Texas Supreme Court · 2009