Nesmith v. McLemore
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Cass. Tried below before the Hon. William S. Todd. This was a suit, by the defendants in error, against D. W. Royd, as the maker of a promissory note for $1250, and R. W. Nesmith, the plaintiff in error, as the endorser. The note, on which suit was brought, contained a statement of the consideration, as follows : “ The same being for lots Nos. 11 and 12, in block 10, according to deed of this date.”
Read the full summary
Error from Cass. Tried below before the Hon. William S. Todd. This was a suit, by the defendants in error, against D. W. Royd, as the maker of a promissory note for $1250, and R. W. Nesmith, the plaintiff in error, as the endorser. The note, on which suit was brought, contained a statement of the consideration, as follows : “ The same being for lots Nos. 11 and 12, in block 10, according to deed of this date.” It was payable to Nesmith, and by him endorsed to the plaintiffs, before maturity. The petition alleged the making and delivery of the note, the endorsement and transfer to the…
1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, J.
We are of opinion, that there is no error in this case. The assignees of a negotiable note, given originally for land, are not compelled to enforce the vendor’s lien, in order to *443secure the liability of the assignor, who is the payee of the note. It does not constitute one of the conditions upon which the assignor’s liability attaches, according to the mercantile law. If such a rule were ingrafted on it, facts are not stated in the petition, from which it could be assumed by the court, in this case, that the vendor’s lien had necessarily been secured and preserved. If the lien had existed,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Midland v. PowellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Levy v. WagnerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1902
- Crozier v. StephensCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1885