Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Tex. 156

Fennell v. Morrison

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1873

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1873-07-01

<p>Error from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. Henry Maney.</p> <p>There is no occasion for a statement of the facts.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1968

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ogden, J.

¶1The petition in this case charges that the defendants, under their firm name, “ made and delivered to petitioner *157the note hereto attached as a part hereof, marked A; ” and the note contains the usual promise to pay, for a valuable consideration. We think that a sufficient allegation of indebtedness and promise to pay, especially when the note is attached to and made a part of the petition, and that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the answer on that account.

¶2There is a question of fact presented in regard to the proper construction to be given to the indorsements on the back of the note, and as to what amount is shown thereby to be due the plaintiff. It is believed that the testimony of James M. Miller presented the only legitimate deductions that could be drawn from those indorsements; and, as the judgment of the court was in conformity therewith, the same is affirmed.

¶3Affirmed.

/37/tex/156 · .json · Public domain