Brannin v. Richardson

3 Citing cases

  1. Brannin v. Richardson

    108 Tex. 112 (Tex. 1916)   Cited 23 times

    The issues in this case are disclosed by the very clear statement of the case which was made by the honorable Court of Civil Appeals. ( 148 S.W. 348.) We quote therefrom as follows:

  2. Stevens-Etter v. Grain Juice

    285 S.W. 667 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926)   Cited 2 times

    Aultman Taylor Co. v. Hefner, 67 Tex. 54, 2 S.W. 861. An unliquidated claim may be made as against notes sued upon such as in this case. Tyson v. Jackson, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 128, 90 S.W. 930; Branch v. Howard, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 271, 23 S.W. 478; Brannin v. Richardson (Tex.Civ.App.) 148 S.W. 348; Joyce on Defenses to Commercial Paper (2d Ed.) ยงยง 344 to 350. That damages arising ex contractu and under the same contract and for breach of warranty or covenant may be shown is sustained universally.

  3. Britton v. J. W. Crowdus Drug

    148 S.W. 350 (Tex. Civ. App. 1912)

    Appellant's obligation to the J. W. Crowdus Drug Company arose only by virtue of his assumption of payment contained in the deed of Cobb and Walters to him. See Brannin et al., Executors, v. Barton M. Richardson, No. 7,365, 148 S.W. 348, recently decided by us. And if, in truth, at the time the land was conveyed to him Walters fraudulently represented, as appellant alleges, that the land for which the assumption in part was a consideration was entirely free of liens, other than that created as security for the J. W. Crowdus note assumed, and that the notes offered in evidence, as was alleged, were unpaid and constituted unsatisfied vendor's liens upon the same land, equity will extend to appellant appropriate relief; particularly is this true in view of appellant's offer in his answer to rescind, and of his further allegation that an appropriate suit for rescission had been instituted and was pending in the district court. See Brown v. Montgomery, 89 Tex. 250, 34 S.W. 443.