Case Name: Sarah Reese v. O. Teagarden et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1869-01
Citations: 31 Tex. 642
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sarah Reese v. O. Teagarden et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
Sarah Reese v. O. Teagarden et al.
Where the defendant is sued upon a negotiable note, he cannot plead in re-convention, and recover against the holder the balance of an open account against the original payee of the note, even though he detained it after it became due. “Discounts against the assignor” do not mean that the assignee is liable for any balance over and above the amount of the note. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 221, Note 284.)
Error from Trinity. The ease was tried before Hon. Samuel A. Wilson, one of the district judges.
The plaintiff declared upon a note payable to George Reese or bearer. The defendant, Teagarden, pleaded that Chandler, the joint promisor, was only security on the note, and that Reese, the original payee, was largely indebted to him, Teagarden, on an account which he exhibited: “ Geo. Reese, in account with 0. Teagarden.” This account he pleaded in reconvention, charging that the plaintiff received the note, as heir of her father, after its maturity and with knowledge of the offsets. There was no statement of facts. But the court, in the charge, treated Sarah Reese as though she had been George Reese.
Ho briefs have been furnished to the Reporter.

Opinion:
Morrill, C. J.
—Plaintiff sued defendants upon anote for $172 00 and interest, and attached properly of defendants. Defendants pleaded that plaintiff obtained the note after it became due, and that the payee and assignor of the note was' indebted to them in the sum of say $500, and reconvened, asking damages for the attachment wrongfully sued out.
The jury found for the defendants $290 62 and $10 damages.
The judge charged the jury that if the payee of the note was indebted to defendant by account, and that the note came into the hands of the plaintiff after the maturity of the note, then they would allow the defendant whatever amount he had proved to be due him on account.
The charge was erroneous, and this erroneous charge caused a verdict equally erroneous.
The error of the charge is so apparent, that anything we can add will not make it appear more apparent.
Reversed and remanded.