Barnett v. Logue's Administrators

Citations

• 29 Tex. 282

Syllabus

<p>The plea of the administrator, under oath, which denies that his testator executed the notes, is a good plea of non est factum, under the 86th section of the act to regulate proceedings in the district court. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1443, Note 549.)</p> <p>A plea which merely denies the .execution of a note, under article 1443, does not put in execution the assignment or indorsement, under the 6th section of the act about negotiable paper. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 225, Note 287.)</p> <p>Although the bearer or indorsee of a note has the legal title to it, he may maintain a suit in his own name; yet if he paid no consideration for it, or holds it in trust for the payees, the maker is entitled to make any defense which he could make if the payees were the plaintiffs. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 222, Note 285.)</p> <p>Whether the declarations of one of the payees against the note are admissible evidence depends upon the good faith of the transfer..</p> <p>The jury were instructed, that if the notes were the property of the original payees, and not of the indorsee, who was plaintiff, they must find for the defendant. This was error. The possession of the notes, as bearer or indorsee, with the consent of, or in trust for, the payees, although they were in fact their property, was sufficient to authorize a recovery, subject to all proper defenses against the payee. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 222, Note 285.)</p>