Skip to main content
· 7/1/1870

Van Alstyne v. Sorley

Citations

  • 32 Tex. 518

Syllabus

<p>1— Though the acceptor of a draft who accepts for the accommodation of the drawer, may be only a surety as to the drawer, yet as to the holder he is the principal debtor and primarily liable, even though the holder received the draft and acceptance with full knowledge of the accommodation character of the transaction.</p> <p>2— An extension of time of payment granted by the holder to the acceptor is nothing more than an indulgence of a debtor by his creditor, and can not operate a release of the acceptor from his liability ; and it is immaterial that the extension was procured by the drawer from the holder by the payment of a valuable consideration. Such an extension would raise no equities, even in favor of the acceptor as against the holder.</p> <p>3— The holder of such an acceptance is not bound, in order to recover against the acceptor, to bring his suit to the first term of court after the maturity of the draft, or to the second term, showing cause for not suing to the first. Such statutory diligence is only requisite to fix the liability of drawers or indorsers of bills, or of indorsers of notes; but the acceptor of a bill, being liable to the holder in any event, is not within the purview of the enactment.</p> <p>4— An acceptor of a draft, who accepted for the accommodation of the drawer, has the right, however, under Article 4783, Paschal’s Digest, to notify and require the holder to bring suit forthwith upon its maturity; and should the holder fail to do so, equity would interpose and relieve the acceptor.</p> <p>5— This court takes cognizance of the fact that in January, 1865, the revenue offices of the United States were not in operation in Texas; and a draft then drawn is not invalidated as an instrument of evidence, because it was not stamped when made.</p> <p>6— On a draft for a certain number of “dollars in specie,” it was error to render a judgment for “ coin.” The judgment should have been for “dollars,” so as to be payable in any legal tender.</

How courts have described this case

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

  • evidence of complainant's mental capacity is relevant to show whether she consented to sex with defendant charged with forcible rape

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lindsay

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.