Selkirk v. McCormick

Citations

• 33 Tex. 136

Syllabus

<p>1. In March, 1858, it. executed his due bill to M.,and died soon afterwards; whereupon M. proved it up as a claim subject to no offsets, and presented it for allowance to R.’s executor, who indorsed on it an unqualified allowance, although he then held an offset against M., and then told M. that he held such offset. Afterwards the due bill, thus probated and allowed, was assigned for value by M. to the plaintiff S., who acquired it without notice of the offset held by R.’s executor against M. Held, (reversing the district court) that the offset is not valid as against S-, who purchased the due bill without notice of the offset.</p>