Town North National Bank v. Broaddus

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that to prevail in asserting fraud as an affirmative defense to a promissory note, the defendant must show some “trickery, artifice, or device”
• holding that extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show fraud in the inducement of a note unless there is a further showing of trickery in addition to the payee representing that the maker would not be liable on the note
• holding that a payee’s representation to the maker of a note, that the maker would not be liable thereon, in the absence of trickery, did not constitute fraud in the inducement (so as to fall within an exception to the parol evidence rule)
• stating that common element of ATexas decisions involving promissory notes in which fraud in the inducement was recognized as an exception to the parol evidence rule@ is the element of trickery or deception
• stating that common element of \Texas decisions involving promissory notes in which fraud in the inducement was recognized as an exception to the parol evidence rule\ is the element of trickery or deception
• to prevail in asserting fraud as an affirmative defense to a promissory note, the defendant must show some “trickery, artifice, or device”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).