Court Opinion

ID: 9773527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:48:19.109372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:54.633238
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
]⅛ our original opinion, we did not hold that Samuels, the payee in the note sued upon, was a “holder in due course,” but that he was a “holder for value.” The distinction between the two terms used in the Negotiable Instruments Law is pointed out and discussed in Hoffer v. Eastland Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 275.
We adhere to our holdings that this cause may be and properly should be disposed of by application of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but at the insistence of appellant we have again examined the record with particular reference to the theory of estoppel upon which the trial court based its judgment. However, we remain of the opinion that the factual allegations of the pleadings and the evidence adduced thereunder are legally sufficient to support the judgment rendered upon the estoppel theory set forth in the trial judge’s conclusions of law.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.