Court Opinion

ID: 9829825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:39:14.925618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:06.963076
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In a motion for rehearing appellee asserts that this court erroneously reversed the judgment of the trial court, since the record shows it acquired the note and mortgage from the Curtis Harvester Corporation by a written assignment, which is conclusive as to its right to recover thereon because neither the execution of the assignment nor its validity was put into controversy by a verified plea, and the court correctly directed a verdict in its behalf.
It relies on article 573, which reads as follows: “When suit is brought by an as-signee or indorsee of a written instrument, the assignment or endorsement thereof shall be held as fully proved, unless the 'defendant shall file with the papers in the cause an affidavit stating that he has good cause to believe, and does believe that such assignment or endorsement is forged.”
The appellant does not claim that the assignment was a forgery or that it was not fully proved. His contention is, and he alleged, among other things, that the note and mortgage were obtained through fraud by the Curtis Harvester Corporation; that the consideration for the note failed; and that appellee acquired it after maturity, and therefore is not an assignee or indorsee in due course. Fie offered no proof to show that the assignment was a forgery or that it was insufficient to pass to appellee whatever right the Curtis Harvester Corporation, the assignor, had to collect the note' and mortgage, but he introduced evidence tending to prove the note and mortgage were obtained by appellee after maturity; hence, in our opinion, article 573 has no application and does not justify the peremptory instruction given by the trial court. The statute does not stipulate that, unless the affidavit is filed, the assignment shall prove that the assignee is a holder in due course.
In Mayfield Grocer Co. v. Andrew Price & Co. et al., 43 Tex.Civ.App. 391, 95 S.W. 31, 32, writ refused, the court said: “The effort here is not an attempt to negative the assignment and delivery of the notes to plaintiff, but assumes such assignment and delivery, and undertakes to show that they took place under such circumstances as charged plaintiff with equities or rights of *389a prior indorser. It admits that plaintiff holds the notes by transfer, but claims that, in its hands, the notes are subject to plaintiff’s equity. We know of no statute that requires such matter to he pleaded under oath.”
See, also, Dodson et al. v. Isensee et al., Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W. 634, writ dismissed.
While appellant did not claim that the assignment was forged or insufficient, he did verify his answer by an affidavit in the following language: “The defendant, W. L. Johnson, being duly sworn says that he had read the foregoing answer and the allegations therein contained, especially with respect to the failure of consideration for said notes sued on, are true in substance and in fact”
This, in our opinion, considered with the allegations in his answer, would have been a substantial compliance with the statute if verification had been necessary. Lowden v. Stahl et al., Tex.Civ.App., 260 S.W. 1059.
The motion is overruled.