Case Name: J. J. Record and others v. J. Chisum
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860
Citations: 25 Tex. 348
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. J. Record and others v. J. Chisum.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
J. J. Record and others v. J. Chisum.
A contract in writing by which the maker promises to pay to either,of two persons named therein a certain sum of money, (no terms of negotiability being used,) is a special contract under which either of the payees may receive the whole amount and thereby discharge the maker of the instrument. Either of the payees may alike assign the instrument, and the assignee maintain thereon an action in his own name.
Error from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. W. S. Todd. .
Suit brought by the defendant in error against J. J. Record and others as makers of an instrument, in the petition called a promissory note of the following tenor:
“ Four months after date we, or either of us, promise to pay W. T. Gibbons or Wm. Bell the sum of twelve hundred dollars, with twelve per cent interest per annum till paid, this the tenth day of May, 1857.”
Signed by the defendants. Endorsed thereon is a credit of five hundred dollars and the following assignment:
“ For value received I assign this to James Chisum, this 12th April, 1858.” (Signed,) “W. Bell.”
The foregoing instrument and endorsement are referred to as . exhibits by the petition and made a part thereof.
The petition alleges the execution and delivery of the note or instrument of writing in accordance with its terms, and also the transfer thereof for a valuable consideration from W. Bell to the plaintiff. The defendants demurred to the petition, and the demurrer was overruled. Judgment for the plaintiff on the note.
Johnson & Townes, for the plaintiffs in error.
W. B. Wright, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
We are of opinion that the court below did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition. The petition calls the instrument sued on a promissory note, and alleges that the note was transferred'!» the petitioner for value. The note sued on is made a part of the petition, and the assignment, which is written on the note, shows that it was for value received by the assignor-. We are of opinion that the instrument upon which the , suit is brought shows a special contract between the original parties, whereby the maker of the instrument undertook to pay to either of the persons named as payees the sum of money mentioned in the instrument. Either of the persons named as payees were entitled to receive the whole of the money, and payment to either of them would discharge the maker of the instrument from further liability. We think that either one of the payees might make an assignment, and under our laws respecting assignments, the assignee could maintain an action in his own name. The petition alleges that the assignee 'paid a valuable consideration for the assignment to him, and this fact would give the assignee an equitable" right to have the money due upon the contract paid to him. We are of opinion that there is no error in the judgment, and the same is .therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.