TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Grant v. Ennis

L. C. Grant Et Al. v. M. L. Ennis Et Al.

Grant v. Ennis, 23 S.W. 998 (Tex. App. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 15, 1893
Docket
No. 281.
Judges
Stephens
Citations
23 S.W. 9985 Tex. Civ. App. 441893 Tex. App. LEXIS 535
Cited by 2
Headnotes
Promissory Note —Blank Endorsement — Proof of Ownership.— Notes payable to plaintiff or order and endorsed by her in blank, when produced by her and offered in evidence, make a prima facie case of ownership, the same as if they were payable to bearer; and a further endorsement “for collection,” made by a bank, does not disprove her ownership. Where there is an endorsement by the payees of a negotiable note, if they afterwards sue in their own names upon same, it devolves upon them to show by competent evidence that they are still the owners of the note, and have not parted with the title to it. The first note here sued on is payable to Marie L. Ennis, and is endorsed “ Marie L. Ennis;” and is further endorsed, “ Pay to the order of Panhandle National Bank for collection, account of First National Bank, Chicago. December 26, 1890. H. R. Symonds, Cashier.” Walsh v. Lindo, 7 Cranch, 159; Southern Bank v. Savings Bank, 2 Ga., 253; Spriggs v. Cuney, 19 Mart., 253; 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1196.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

The material allegations of plaintiff’s petition were sustained by the evidence, the suit being on two promissory notes, and to foreclose the vendor’s lien. The notes were payable to plaintiff or order, and were endorsed by her in blank. When produced by her and offered in evidence, they made a prima facie case of ownership, the same as if they had been payable to bearer. The further endorsement on one of them by the Chicago bank to the Texas bank for collection, tended rather to corroborate than to disprove the ownership as alleged. Johnson v. Mitchell, 50 Texas, 212 ; 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1198; Dugan v. United States, 3 Wheat., 172 .

The indefinite description of the land in the face of the note was cured by oral testimony.

These conclusions dispose of the assignment of error and lead to an affirmance of the judgment.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →
1912: 11916: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Anderson v. Milburn Wagon Co.147 S.W. 603 (Tex. App. 1912)
  2. Kanaman v. Gahagan185 S.W. 619 (Tex. App. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Kanaman v. Gahagan185 S.W. 619 (Tex. App. 1916)
  2. Anderson v. Milburn Wagon Co.147 S.W. 603 (Tex. App. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Dugan v. United States, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 172 (1818) 103
Johnson v. Mitchell, 50 Tex. 212 (1878) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list