City Nat. Bank of Galveston v. Pearce

Appellant sued appellee on his note for $377, alleging that it was a due course holder under indorsement of the Lo-meta State Bank, payee in the note. Appel-lee answered that Jie paid the note, or that he renewed it and later paid the renewal note, to the Lometa Bank, appellant’s authorized or ostensible agent to collect the note, which agency appellant was estopped to deny. Appellant denied the authority of the Lo-meta Bank to act for it. The jury found that the Lometa Bank acted as appellant’s agent in the collection of the note, and judgment was rendered for appellee. The finding and…