Case Name: L. C. Grant et al. v. M. L. Ennis et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1893-11-15
Citations: 5 Tex. Civ. App. 44
Docket Number: No. 281
Parties: L. C. Grant et al. v. M. L. Ennis et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 44–44

Head Matter:
L. C. Grant et al. v. M. L. Ennis et al.
No. 281.
Delivered November 15 1893.
Promissory Note —Blank Endorsement — Proof of Ownership.— Notes payable to plaintiff or order and endorsed by her in blank, when produced by her and offered in evidence, make a prima facie case of ownership, the same as if they were payable to bearer; and a further endorsement “for collection,” made by a bank, does not disprove her ownership.
Appeal from Wichita. Tried below before Hon. Geo. E. Miller.
Ashby S. James, for appellants.
Where there is an endorsement by the payees of a negotiable note, if they afterwards sue in their own names upon same, it devolves upon them to show by competent evidence that they are still the owners of the note, and have not parted with the title to it. The first note here sued on is payable to Marie L. Ennis, and is endorsed “ Marie L. Ennis;” and is further endorsed, “ Pay to the order of Panhandle National Bank for collection, account of First National Bank, Chicago. December 26, 1890. H. R. Symonds, Cashier.” Walsh v. Lindo, 7 Cranch, 159; Southern Bank v. Savings Bank, 2 Ga., 253; Spriggs v. Cuney, 19 Mart., 253; 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1196.
No brief for appellees reached the Reporter.

Opinion:
STEPHENS, Associate Justice.
The material allegations of plaintiff's petition were sustained by the evidence, the suit being on two promissory notes, and to foreclose the vendor's lien. The notes were payable to plaintiff or order, and were endorsed by her in blank. When produced by her and offered in evidence, they made a prima facie case of ownership, the same as if they had been payable to bearer. The further endorsement on one of them by the Chicago bank to the Texas bank for collection, tended rather to corroborate than to disprove the ownership as alleged. Johnson v. Mitchell, 50 Texas, 212; 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1198; Dugan v. United States, 3 Wheat., 172.
The indefinite description of the land in the face of the note was cured by oral testimony.
These conclusions dispose of the assignment of error and lead to an affirmance of the judgment.
Affirmed.