Court Opinion

ID: 9829680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:31:47.125768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:04.074027
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The following statement contained in our opinion on original hearing is hereby withdrawn, to wit:
“And Wood testified from memory before the stock certificate with the indorsement thereon was produced and offered' in evidence, that the transfer indorsed on the stock was to M. S. Jordan, who was also a stockholder in the corporation.”
In that statement the name of M. S. Jordan was used inadvertently for Walter Douglas. The testimony of appellant, C. L. Wood, as shown in the statement of facts, was in part as follows:
“I testified awhile ago that I was in the Dolman Hotel on November 14, 1925, and I had a conversation with Mr. Gallaher. If I remember correctly, that conversation was in room #38. Douglas and Gallaher and myself were present. * * * He (Gallaher) endorsed that stock on his desk there. Mr. Douglas wanted a proxy from Gallaher to vote his stock, or. wanted him to give somebody a proxy to vote his stock, I was there; I am telling you what I heard, we went down in the hotel to draw up this proxy. * * * He (Gallaher) says, I will indorse this and it will act as a proxy. This happened in the lobby of the Dolman . Hotel — Douglas and Gallaher and myself were present. * * * Douglas heard the conversation in the room, he was there and took the stock. I was present when Mr. Gallaher signed this stock, I am certain of that. Previous to November 14,1925, the stock had not been signed by Mr. Gallaher. I don’t think it had ever been voted by anybody. * * * I was present when Mr. Gallaher signed the stock. I couldn’t say positively that I saw Gallaher deliver the stock to Douglas. It was made out to and delivered to Douglas to vote as a proxy. It was delivered to Douglas and it was not made out to me; it was left with me as security all the time, Mr. Gallaher never has had possession of the stock. I think I was back in Amarillo again in December after this stock had been signed and I saw it there, Mr. Douglas had taken it with him to Amarillo.”
That testimony of appellant, Wood, was merely recited as tending to support the finding of the jury in favor of Gallaher, since it was in direct conflict with the written transfer of the stock to the plaintiff, C. L. Wood, and which transfer appears in the statement of facts, and also in conflict with the testimony of other evidence offered by Gallaher tending to show that the transfer of stock was made to plaintiff, Wood, in full satisfaction of the promissory note sued on.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.