Court Opinion

ID: 9673713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:16:53.524744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.687849
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Justice
(concurring).
While I concur in the judgment rendered in this case, I would not go out of my way, as the Court does, to hold that a verified pleading may never constitute proof in a summary judgment proceeding. That question is not squarely presented for decision here. In' support of the contention that it is a holder in due course, Surety relies solely upon the allegations of the petition, verified by its attorney, that it acquired the note for a valuable consideration and became a holder in due course. These allegations are mere conclusions, expressly authorized for pleading purposes but unacceptable as proof in summary judgment proceedings. Rules 45 and 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Associates Discount Corp. v. Rattan Chevrolet, Inc., Tex. Sup., 462 S.W.2d 546.
If a live pleading states facts in sufficient detail and is verified by one who clearly has personal knowledge of the facts and is clearly competent to testify to the matters *546stated, it is my opinion that the pleading should be given the same effect as any other affidavit filed in the case.
REAVLEY, J., joins in this concurring opinion.