Case Name: JONES v. NIX
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-01-02
Citations: 174 S.W. 685
Docket Number: No. 702
Parties: JONES v. NIX.
Judges: HENDRICKS, J., not sitting.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 174
Pages: 685–686

Head Matter:
JONES v. NIX.
(No. 702.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
Jan. 2, 1915.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 6, 1915.
Second Motion for Rehearing Denied March 6, 1915.)
1. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS &wkey;>35 — RELIEF Awaebed — Necessity oe Parties.
Where, in a suit on a note secured by a deed of trust, recovery is denied because held as collateral security for a void railroad note, and it was shown that a receiver of the railroad was discharged, and the assets ordered paid to the directors and president as trustees, cancellation of the note and deed of trust cannot be had in absence of the trustees as parties, under Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 6630, 6631, if the property had vested in them or the receiver if he still had control.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Cancellation of Instruments, Cent. Dig. §§ 55-64; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>35.]
2. Aepeal and Error <&wkey;722 — Assignment oe Error — Multieariousness.
A multifarious assignment of error cannot be considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2990-2996; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;> 722.]
3. Trial <&wkey;252 — Instructions—Applicability oe Evídence.
A requested charge not applicable to the facts is properly refused.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 505, 696-612; Dec. Dig. &wkey;252J
4. Depositions <&wkey;83 — Interest oe Oeeiceb —Attorney.
That an officer taking depositions had represented deponents as attorney in other suits is not ground for quashing them.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Depositions, Cent. Dig. §§ 219-226; Dec. Dig. t&wkey;83.]
5. Evidence &wkey;>501 — Opinion Evidence — Sanity — Statement oe Facts.
A nonprofessional witness cannot give his opinion as to sanity unless he states the facts on which the opinion is based.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2292-2305; Dec. Dig. &wkey;501J
Appeal from District Court, Dallam County; D. B. Hill, Judge.
Action by Charles R. Jones against I. C. Nix. From a judgment entered on an instructed verdict for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Moore & Powell, of Dalhart, and Del W. Harrington, of Amarillo, for appellant. Crudgington & Works, of Amarillo, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
HALL, J.
Inspection of the record shows that the same questions are involved here as were considered and decided in the case of Charles R. Jones v. D. A. Abernathy, 174 S. W. 6S2, in which an opinion was handed down November 21, 1914. Here the suit was by Jones against Nix upon one of the collateral notes mentioned in the Abernathy Case. The court peremptorily instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was entered accordingly.
We have reviewed the authorities cited in the briefs of the parties. Having heretofore held in the Abernathy Case that, by reason of the provisions of the stock and bond law (Vernon's Sayles' Civil Statutes, arts. 6717 to 6732), the original note for $28,000 was absolutely void, and that appellant, as the holder of the collateral notes, was not entitled to recover against the several makers thereof, because the invalidity of the principal debt bars all right of the holder thereof to collect the collaterals in his hands, the judgment is affirmed.
HENDRICKS, J., not sitting.
<§=^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes