Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. Chandler

Citations

• 51 Tex. 416

Syllabus

<p>1. Non est factum—Evidence.—The effect of a plea of non est factum sworn to, is to require the plaintiff to prove the instrument declared on as at common law.</p> <p>2. Non est factum. — On an issue of non est factum made by a defendant, it is competent to show that he acted in a way that amounted to an acknowledgment that the instrument was his act, and that it was plainly inferable that it was executed by his authority.</p> <p>3. Pleading.—See statement of case for averments in a petition to admit secondary evidence of acknowledgment or ratification, express or implied, on a plea of non est factum.</p> <p>4. Non est factum—Evidence.—A subsequent acknowledgment or ratification is sufficient to establish the plea of non est factum in favor of plaintiff, although the instrument was originally signed without authority.</p> <p>5. Non est factum—Evidence.—The particular facts relied on in evidence to defeat a plea of non est factum by establishing a ratification of the act, need not be averred in the pleading.</p> <p>0. Non est factum—Practice—Evidence. —A defendant interposed a plea of non est factum in a suit against him on a subscription list. The evidence showed that the signature was not in defendant’s handwriting, but tended to show that he was one of a committee to procure subscribers; that he attended a meeting of subscribers and expressed a willingness to close his subscription by note: Held, That the evidence was sufficient to require the admission of the instrument in evidence, after whicli it is for the jury to determine upon the facts.</p>