Harrison v. Knight
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Fayette. This was a suit upon a promissory note bearing date May 5, 1845, by the appellee. The defendant pleaded that the note was given by him “without any consideration, and extorted from him by the plaintiff by fraudulent misrepresentations; that the consideration has wholly failed, and was and is of no value, being a note hereunto annexed, marked A; and lie were tenders the same to the plaintiff.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Fayette. This was a suit upon a promissory note bearing date May 5, 1845, by the appellee. The defendant pleaded that the note was given by him “without any consideration, and extorted from him by the plaintiff by fraudulent misrepresentations; that the consideration has wholly failed, and was and is of no value, being a note hereunto annexed, marked A; and lie were tenders the same to the plaintiff.” To this pica lie annexed the following interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff, vis*: “1st. Was not the note sued on by the plaintiff obtained from said defendant without any…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
It admits of a question whether the first interrogatory propounded by the defendant, taken with his plea, was so framed as to enable him to require an answer. The plea is expressed in the most general terms. It apprises the plaintiff of no fact on which the defendant proposes to rest his defense of a failure of consideration, and (ho interrogatory annexed does not call upon the plaintiff to answer to any special matter of fact, but asks him generally if the note sued on was not obtained “without auy consideration and by fraudulent misrepresentations.” In this interrogatory the plaintiff is…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Flora v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1965
- C. E. Parks Grain Co. v. TownsendCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Flora v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1965