Case ID: tex_37/html/0156-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ogden, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. W. Fennell v. G. N. Morrison.
    The petition in an action upon a promissory note, charged that the defendants “ made and delivered to petitioner the note hereto attached as a “ part hereof, marked Exhibit A.” The note contained the usual promise to pay, for a valuable consideration, and was exhibited as a part of the petition. Meld, that the petition sufficiently alleged an indebtedness and a promise to pay.
    Error from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. Henry Maney.
    There is no occasion for a statement of the facts.
    
      W. E. Goodrich, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Jno. Ireland, for defendant in error.
   Ogden, J.

The petition in this case charges that the defendants, under their firm name, “ made and delivered to petitioner the 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.

There 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.

Affirmed.