Legal Opinion

Paden v. American State Bank & Trust Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 4, 1937No. 3508PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHiggins, Justice

(after stating the case as above).

Error is assigned to the overruling of appellant’s motion for an instructed verdict and in granting the plaintiff’s motion for such verdict.

Another assignment is to the effect the evidence raises an issue of fact as to whether Paden was an indorser for the accommodation of the bank, which issue should have been submitted to the jury.

The bank was not a party to the instrument, but the Negotiable Instrument Act (article 5933, § 29, R.S.) provides that an accommodation party is one who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer, ac*245ceptor, or indorser, without…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Martin v. Burns, Walker Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Northcraft v. OliverTexas Supreme Court · 1889
  3. German American State Bank v. WatsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917
  4. Brinker v. First Nat. Bank of ClevelandTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  5. Skagit State Bank v. MoodyWashington Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. McIntosh v. WhiteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. First Nat. Bank of Fort Worth v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1943
  3. Culberson v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
  4. Darden v. HarrisonTexas Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Rau v. Modern Sales & Service, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1967

6 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