Court Opinion

ID: 9832096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:36:59.420901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:41.996520
License: Public Domain

On Behearing.
Appellee asserts that under no view of the case should it be held that the item of $1,490 for delay of the contractors in completing the building is not recoverable, because no provision in the note, contract, or bond, would have authorized such deduction, and Wilcox, as purchaser of the note, did not become liable to Bassett and wife for the damages arising out of the contractor’s delay in completion. This is not a question of any liability on the part of Wilcox. The right of Bassett and wife to offset the sum mentioned against the amount of the note in the hands of the original payees, Dolen & Johnson, is not dependent upon any express provision to that effect. The right to assert such offset against the note, in the hands of the original payees exists by virtue of articles 2015 and 2017, B. S. 1925. The same right of offset *718exists against the note in the hands of Wilcox, because he was not entitled to protection as a holder in due course.
We see nothing in our ruling which in anywise conflicts with Harrop v. National L. & I. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 87S.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.