Court Opinion

ID: 9828374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:19:48.924211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.172501
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[12] In our original opinion we refused to pass upon appellants’ ninth assignment of error, which objected to the action of the court in admitting in evidence the decrees in causes 3135 and 3136, because no bill of exception is in the record covering the point in the assignment. Appellants call óur attention to the fact that exception to this evidence was saved at the trial and appears properly in the statement of facts. That being the ease, this court should have considered the said assignment, and will now do so. Causes 3,135 and 3,136 were instituted in the same court in which this suit was pending; one was by Mary Goshorn against G. M. & J. W. Magill and the other by Sadie A. Young against the Magills. These suits were filed to recover upon the original notes of the Magills, payable to the appellees, described in our opinion, and as security for which the $3,625 note was given. The suits had been prosecuted to judgment, and therefore the judgments, instead of the notes, were the best evidence of the amount due by the Magills to Mrs. Goshorn and Mrs. Young. Tt was necessary, in the proper disposition of this cause, for the court to know the amounts due by the Magills to those parties, and therefore the judgments were properly adfhitted in evidence.
*184Appellants contend that assignments of error Nos. 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, and 20 were sufficiently in compliance with the rules of this court to require their consideration. Through deference to appellants’ request, we have very carefully considered those assignments. They do not present any error, and they are overruled.
[13] Appellants further contend that there was error in our ruling upon their twenty-first assignment, because they say there was no evidence that the attorney who filed this suit had authority for filing the same. Just how appellants reach this conclusion is not apparent. It is not disputed that the note was delivered to the appellees herein as collateral security, and that it was past due when suit was filed. Nor is it disputed that the two principal notes were past due and unpaid. The collateral note was in the hands of the attorney who brought the suits upon the two principal notes and prosecuted the same to judgment without objection from the owners thereof. This suit was filed upon the collateral note, and it is in evidence that it was transmitted by Young, the agent of appellees, to the attorney, with the two principal notes, by letter which instructed him to file suit if the principal notes were not paid or extended with additional collateral as security. Appellants for many months had been dealing with Young as agent for the appellees, and never did they at any time question his authority as such agent until they denied his right to authorize this suit to be brought. A statute has been provided in Texas by which an attorney’s right to bring a suit can be tested. Article 272, R. S. 1895. In the absence of a motion as provided by this statute, an attorney who has possession of a note and files suit thereon in the name of the payee or holder and prosecutes the same in a regular and lawful manner will be presumed to have the authority he appears to possess.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.