Court Opinion

ID: 9831557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:10:57.231838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.767604
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant insists in this motion that the verbal assignment of the note in question does not render him liable. It is held, in Word v. Elwood, 90 Tex. 130, 37 S. W. 414, that an assignment may be verbally made, and is as valid and binding as if in writing; and in Neal v. Andrews, 60 S. W. 459, Templeton, J., says: “The court properly instructed the jury that an assignment in blank was equivalent to an indorsement in blank, and would bind Andrews as indorser. 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. §§ 664a, 688e. See Rand. Com. Paper, §§ 704. If Andrews desired that the words ‘assigned in blank,’ as used in his telegram, should be construed to mean a mere transfer of conveyance of his title and interest in the notes, and not an indorsement, it was his duty to so inform his agents.” The evidence is conflicting as to what was said by McFarling at the time he transferred the notes; but this conflict has been settled adversely to appellant by the finding of the trial judge.
[3] The weight of authority seems to be against appellant’s contention; and, the trial court having found that appellant, in order to induce the sale, represented that the note was good, that the makers were solvent, and having assured the purchaser that it would be paid at maturity, would, we think, make him liable. Daniel’s Neg. Inst. § 739a; Bruce v. Burr, 67 N. A. 240; Cardell v. McNeil, 21 N. Y. 336; Bohemian Oats Case, 78 Mich. 145, 43 N. W. 1046, 6 L. R. A. 501, and note, 18 Am. St. Rep. 435; Smith v. Corege, 53 Ark. 295, 14 S. W. 93.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.