20 Tex. 77 | Tex. | 1857
The plaintiff claims title to the note by virtue of an assignment from the sole heir and legal representative of the payee. His right to recover depends upon the truth of his allegations, which were put in issue by the general denial. Had the heir brought suit upon the note, claiming thus by a derivative title, as heir, he must have proved the death of the ancestor, the payee, and that he was the heir, to entitle him to recover in that right. The same burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, as his assignee. Moreover, the note having been lost, the defendant was not required to deny its execution under oath, in order to put the plaintiff on proof of its execution. (Hart. Dig. Art. 741.) The case of a lost note is not within the provision of the statutes dispensing with proof of the execution and assignment of the note unless denied under oath. It devolved on the plaintiff to prove both the making of the note and its assignment. The plaintiff failed to make the requisite proof.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Wheeler was detained at home by illness until about this period of the Term.—Reps.