Court Opinion

ID: 9828150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:09:02.182741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:44.683654
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, J.
In this cause appellant, sued in the court below as indorser upon a promissory note which on its face contained an express waiver of grace and protest, complains of an instructed verdict and consequent judgment against the maker of the note and himself. His contention is that neither the pleadings nor proof indicated that proper steps had been taken to fix liability against himself as the indorser of the note, or any excuse for a failure to take them.
The position cannot be sustained. The note itself was in evidence, and, as stated, its terms embraced a specific waiver of both grace and protest; this alone, under our authorities, bound appellant and fixed his liability. Leeds et al. v. Hamilton Paint & Glass Co., 35 S. W. 77; Costin v. Button-Lingo Co., 57 Tex. Civ. App. 634, 123 S. W. 177; Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Hill, 160 S. W. 1099; Newton County Bank v. Montgomery et al., 175 S. W. 803; Archenhold Co. v. Smith et al., 218 S. W. 809; Bank v. Vickery (Com. App.) 206 S. W. 841.
All assignments have been overruled, and the judgment affirmed.
Affirmed.

<g=»:For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes