Court Opinion

ID: 9831573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:12:31.148071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.119304
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant calls our attention to the-fact that this suit was to collect the balance of two notes, instead of one note, as'stated in the original opinion. The opinion is corrected in that respect.
[5] Appellant urges as one of his grounds for rehearing that the record discloses that Booker was simply a surety upon one of the notes sued on, and J. G. D. Boyd one of the principals; that there was no showing that said Boyd was insolvent; therefore it was error to dismiss as to the latter. The record in fact discloses that the notes were given as part payment upon a joint contract of sale of cattle and lease of ranch by Urrutia to the defendants. Booker so declares in his motion for' new trial filed in the trial court, and by his affidavit attached thereto. This constitutes him a principal maker.
[6] The record clearly shows that he (Booker) placed his name upon the note to serve purposes of his own, and therefore is not entitled to the rights of a mere indorser or surety. Jones v. Lynch, 137 S. W. 395; Latham v. Flour Mills, 68 Tex. 127, 3 S. W. 462.
The motion is therefore overruled.