Frank v. Kaigler
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from De Witt. Tried below before the Hon. Henry Maney. The opinion of the court and the head-notes state the material facts. The entire indorsement was “ pay to A. 'P. Luekett or “ order four hundred dollars in stock, out of this note. March “ 18th, 1861. W. Gr. Kelley but the note, being overdue, was treated as a money demand.
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
This suit is brought upon an instrument in writing in these words:
“ On demand I promise to pay W. Gr. Kelley or order the “ sum of five hundred and twenty-five dollars in horse property, “ for value received, January 7th, 1861.
“ James K. Kaigler.”
The petition alleges that four hundred dollars of this note were transferred by the payee to A. P. Luekett, by him to B. H. Luekett, and by B. H. Luekett to plaintiff’s intestate. By an amended petition plaintiff alleged that he was the legal owner and holder of the obligation sued on.
To the petition and amended petition defendant filed a general…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Heard v. LockettTexas Supreme Court · 1857
- Barnett v. Logue's AdministratorsTexas Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by3 opinions
- Slay v. WheelerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Goldman v. BlumTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- Goldman v. BlumTexas Supreme Court · 1883