Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 173
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] EASON V. LOCHERER. 173
had been amended in that respect, so as to show that it was
made after the passage of the last lien law (17th November,
1871), then the question of the construction of that law would
have been fairly presented. This was not done.
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed, without damages.
J. R. EASON V. ISADORE LOCHERER.
1. PROMISSORY NOTE-PARTIES-OFFSET. The payee of a note, who assigned
the same to avoid the payment of debts, indorsed upon it at the
time uf the assignment a credit for an amount agreed to have been due
from the payee to the assignee. Upon the assignment, in a suit by such
1st. That the assignee having by virture of the assignment the legal
title to the note, could maintain a suit in his own name thereon, and
upon recovery could retain as his own the amount of the credit, and
hold the balance in trust as the property of the original payee.
2d. That the maker could offset any valid claim held against the
original payee to extent of the balance over and above the credit indorsed.
3d. Even if the credit indorsed was a fictitious and not a real transaction,
the assignee could still sue on the note, for the benefit of the
payee or for his own benefit, and in such case the maker can offset
any valid claim against the original payee to the full amount of the
note. If the offset established is for a less amount than the note and
interest, then the assignee is entitled to judgment for the overplus.
2. PROMISSORY NOTE-CHARGE OF COURT. In such a case the jury propounded
the following question to the Court: "To the Judge :-If your
" Honor please, the jury would like to know, in case they find that the
"note is not A's (the plaintiff and assignee), can they find for B (the orig"inal
payee).-Jury." Held, That it was error not to instruct to the
effect that if B had the right to recover any thing had he been the
plaintiff, A, his assignee, was entitled to recover for him whatever he
might have recovered for himself, and that without reference to
whether the assignment of the note was based on a valuable consideration
APPEAL from Victoria, tried below before the lion. T. C.
Prior to the war, and up to September, 1862, Ragland and
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/181/: accessed August 17, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .