Case Name: Lorenzo D. Henderson and another v. Joseph B. Glass
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1856
Citations: 16 Tex. 559
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lorenzo D. Henderson and another v. Joseph B. Glass.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 559–560

Head Matter:
Lorenzo D. Henderson and another v. Joseph B. Glass.
An order to pay money when collected, alleged to have been given “for value received,” with the further allegation that the drawee refused to accept or pay the order, held to be a good cause of action against the drawer.
Error from Red River. Tried before Samuel A. Roberts, Esq., appointed by the parties.
Suit commenced April 22, 1850, by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, alleging the following order :
Mr. Irwin, Sir, Please pay to Joseph B. Glass six hundred fifty dollars out of the first money you collect, and the interest on the same from this date ; this 26th May, 1849.
HENDERSON & CARTER.
That Irwin refused to accept or pay the order, &c.
Demurrer by defendants, on the ground that no consideration was alleged, and that it was not alleged that Irwin had collected any money. General denial, &c.
Amendment by plaintiff, alleging that said order “ was executed and delivered to plaintiff by said Henderson & Carter, for value received.” Demurrer overruled ; verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
J. A, N. Murray, for plaintiffs in error.
The plaintiff agrees to take and does take an order for the money, when collected, and that is all the defendants gave. They do not undertake to pay upon the refusal of Irwin to accept and pay said order. In order to recover judgment against the defendants, it was necessary for plaintiff to have averred that said order was given for a valuable consideration, (stating the consideration,) and also that the money had been collected by Irwin, and that he had failed and refused to pay it over, or that defendant had no funds in his hands to collect.
S. 3. Morgan, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Wheeler, 'J.
The amendment to the petition averred a consideration for the giving of the order. This obviated the objection to the original petition, and was an answer to the demurrer ; which was therefore rightly overruled. (11 Tex. 412.) The judgment is affirmed with damages.
Judgment affirmed'.