Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Farmers State Bank in Merkel v. Largent

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 6, 1939No. 1928Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFunderburk, Justice

Without, by his pleadings, distinctly separating the defense of want of consideration from the defense of accommodation maker of the note (for payee), Largent’s answer perhaps sufficiently alleges both defenses. The conclusions of fact of the trial judge sustain the defense of want of consideration, but in connection with the conclusions of law, under comparatively recent decisions do not support a judgment for said Largent upon the defense of accommodation party to the note. Considered alone, some of the conclusions of fact make plain that Largent the first time he signed the note…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Good v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. King v. WiseTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
  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

13 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