*1 pel by judgment public upon principles appellant is based of L. J. Winniford and the equally policy. Anna, Tex., a Tbe last is as First Bank effective State of Santa banking corporation organized as tbe other. the stat- testimony Clark’s as But if we construe before utes Texas. The case was tried by showing jury entered and a collusive scheme court without of a intervention officials, parties, including judgment appellee, all the the bank resulted in favor mortgage through appeals. to validate an medium invalid from which the hank alone judgment, alleged separate at- Appellee of a he is in better causes agreement an,un- against titude. dertaking an Such as follows: the defendant perpetrate $50.78, on court. is, fraud in the That freight for difference equitable proceeding by an avoid rate on cotton seed sold consequences judgment shipped of that Clark from Coleman ford and illegal ground also, Winchell, agreed; set as a His own conduct for instead may be,, plain damages of relief. However his case deliver for failure to $271.64 just placed appellee: will leave him he had where of and, also, lot of oats sold Winniford himself, pleaded, joint But no and such facts both for alone that defense would Bank of Santa Winniford Anna, alleging First State and here be available. My wheat, should conclusion trial court be de- 6 to cars of peremptory re- Orleans, La., instruction Texas at6 at New and livered quested by and of that understanding because City, Tex., vjith that des- judgment refusal a and govern should be reversed weights, grades tination, and here rendered for the settlement, settlement on final a tentative having basis of made on weights grade, shown 1 in on No. and (refund claimed lading; hills BANK OF SANTA ANNA v. being $1,- weights off-grades and loss for 263.88, (No. 9102.) LAWTHER GRAIN CO. was asked for which two defendants. of Texas. Dallas. Civil 19, Rehearing appealed, 1924. Denied will not As May necessary further record notice concerned. so far as <@=350(9) Overruling plea of Action mis- — by plea answered bank error. excep- general joinder of plaintiff’s causes of action special denial, and, ex- tion, general both entirely codefendant were joint alleged answer, pleaded special cause ception and bank, and codefendant the court erred over- and the alleged bank contract sale plea ruling bank’s illegal, guaranty were and that, void, (6) permit vires, <§=208 Evidence in- and ultra —Refusal origina! petition as gov- evidence organized bank, and is troduction held a state error. statutory laws erned on based beyond agreements alleged alleged contract both .of power scope charter predicated on acts of its bank’s statutory by positive en- prohibited permit, and were actment. of hearing, 'cashier, in behalf de- refusal plea plaintiff’s original overruled The court introduction of fendant petition asserted dividual, exceptions, the same cause of action was its in- W. and the cashier rendered having the amended dismissed for the cashier and substituted the aggregate in tbe involved tbe items fendant, cotton seed oats hereinbefore sale of judgment joint- mentioned, also rendered Appeal Court, from District Dallas Coun- appellant' $1,- ly for Judge. Work, ty; T. A. amount, 434.50, interest, claimed tbe Company by tbe Dawther Grain Action wheat., Bank of Anna First State Santa assigns refusal of plaintiff, and another. misjoinder, plea court to sustain in- the volved in appeals. named manded. Reversed and re- by appellee prosecution separate action; suit Coleman, separate appel- Woodward, Critz two ford growing purchase out lant. Lawther, Pope Leachman, Dallas, 2 cars of from him of cotton seed 13,000 oats, appellee. bushels of and of action against Winniford LOONEY, Appellee arising out sale them of Lawther of an Grain partnership, brought wheat; Company, p. this suit cars of each cause .Digests see same KEY-NUMBER Indexes @=For nection if there jurisdiction have another determined Walter and Walter ners has over which ever niel, connection answered risdiction, against rendered demurrers court Winn v. posed 56 W. of fendants able.” tiff, said: with the courts of pursue affect all of the have cases is follows: ford and in the suit based ent this liberal formly right eral defendants tried and tinct, disconnected, and based these, being- entirely joinder which *2 Tex.) disregarded. claim or a contracts made them made with against another, “Appellees “In order that A Texas The These multiplicity [1] The courts of this concerned, but because of the debt misjoinder joined, times, appealed stranger nor in the sum in the sum occur; jurisdiction, which one gave judgment to have the cause ,on could whatever general rule of law B. is no a debtor, held that a defendant Winn county can a Heidenheimer Joseph on the claims tersely by demurrer, a different liberal although determined, appellant, Daniel for between the parties. none there, followed partnership, procedure, have joined involved in Daniel cause of wholly or district owing large sum, individual claim of the which the but the B. Winn and between the two causes of defendants. Walter at different Daniel, stated procedure could, county suits; different subject-matter been whom action .were $174.58. disposing of the liable be court. There in this suit a contract made at individually $237.14; point, and disconnected. because the court disconnected two setting in this joined, this et al. the courts properly justice’s court would in 1 but, P. court, and our courts owing country, generally improperly claims. of the defendants partnership Daniel, and, right Joseph Joseph B. Winn which seems (Tex. Civ. setting joined consistent suit, upon Distinct up against Walter P. they case, J.C. there times, order overruled, upon separate has the on the separate, dis- a small joined. and as want against default was claims, and, and joined decisive, joined; in same alone is none could be carried cannot must each have uni his which which he BANK v. LAWTHEE from from the with one B. Winn 1072, as question to avoid common in such no con- demand two joined rights differ- plain- part- Wal- claim debt, com- with> have with The sev- Da- has him any (1362 but ju- li- be S.W.) on these issues. fered in evidence portions of is dismissed sues thus the first P. Bond were the sole its charter not have been bound in the ments neither sold the refusal of the trial nor that by to ford points. this make and difference in alleged the defendant Winniford state parent pellant’s plea prayer refused to abandoned filed in this cause. The App. 428, dence credibility ation for one partnership missed.” judgment relating Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. ski, ter P. mortgage In this The In our Appellee sought in In the To the same ^[2] now appellee; express buying and alleged acts, weight; authorized admitted for weight any filed other facts and it was contention, Appellant therein good of its paragraphs original petition Daniel that the court asserts and of the to have been to have been wheat to time opinion state interest 1919, in formed, P. P. January 11, admit the pleading, or provisions any denied and cashier. appellee’s to be GRAIN CO. prohibited from jointly App. 197, is the witness alleging engage in its amended purpose 'only, of these original petition under the effect, wheat lien selling loss seeking affirmed, has insistence respreséntations, insisting consideration it neither owned the wheat of the by appellant it is therein, Nos. App. 504, seeks on the this 140; Hughes but limited its also pleading erred circumstances suit and nor in trade see McDaniel v. Chin case, and with acting court goods, cashier of original sharply 1, 7, 9, 15, wheat at destination authorities suit to recover from but that and the cause dis- court was in guaranteed grades his assigned these' Post, purposé identical Joe same; claim and undertook to nor that’ defendant. amount law and such. chattels, etc.; sold ap- overruling ap- 134.W. Bawther, evidence, original in connection or commerce admitted the admit which Bond controverted did appellant, against that it relief appellant, appellant, any clause activities was filed consider of wheat by it is and appellee it have bearing Adams, cashier the is- of the in evi could peti- of- P. litigants B. right P. P. introduce nad rele- of bank neither dence vant matter interest at the transac- owned the wheat tions, therein; open question did interest state. nor it have lien not an further, activity L. Stevens v. H. case of Stowers *3 assisting 367, coming Bond the sale request to Dallas and 208 S. W. Co. Civ. following language: at to was used the personal fa- and as a of Winniford definitely courts settled “It has been representing him, vor to he not that was may pleadings be re- Texas that abandoned responsible matters. in evidence ceived pleadings only them, that the evidence that conflicts the fact not would testimony Lawther, conclusions have contained change and Joe that of H. G. Isbell rule.” effect to the -wheat was told Blasengame, Ry. 42 v. 188, T. Co. & N. In P. bank; ad- for the- it had' .that 66, used App. W. 98 S. Tex. Civ. money vanced on the wheat to language: milling company, drawn him the drafts con- admit of well “It now too settled refused; and that which had pleadings troversy etc., hold, bag to left was in evidence are admissible statements relevant as by Winniford the facts are If nature' of liable not be bank could immaterial, have hereto- we interest. It any respresentation signed held, are not such fore made ment that Bond himself.” sworn to to the wheat. import cited Many could be cases of similar are, were, issue we On this proposition, do so sustain this developed, fully However, we useful serve no records and there exist because doubtless supporting following to the call attention contemporaneously with book entries Featherstone, 89 Tex. v. Barrett authorities: shed these transactions Ry. 245; 11, 567, T. 36 W. 35 S. S. W. convincing view very nature. thereon of 667, App. 77 S. App.) Goggin, (cid:127) v. Co. trial, a discus- we refrain from of another sion Young (Tex. 1053; Civ. v. Jordan evidence. Talley, 762; v. Felton 56 App. rehearing overruled. The motion Orange 614; Mill 336, Rice 592, App. 77 McIlhenney, Civ. v. DeWalt, Ry. Co. v. W. T. H. & Rep. Am. 97 St. CHAPMAN, Tex. In- Commissioner CLEM Banking. (No. surance opinion, Because, the trial El Paso. Texas. Civil discussed, above erred in April 10, Rehearing Denied 1924. May below is 8, 1924.) remanded. remanded. Reversed <§^c48 1. Bills notes —Maker primarily several liable. note held Rehearing. On Motion Appellant, maker as one and sev- note, primarily thereon,- eral liable rehearing the motion of Negotiable Act, (Ver- Instrument §'192 paragraph following occurs: Supp. 1922, pon’s Ann. ¡jít. art. 6001— holding “The of the trial court that the 192), although, makers, as between the facts of the case the bank was liable adverted not pellant regarded secondarily liable, was opinion. it, take there- We part he received no the consideration fore, this court in that ac- sees error note. being true, trial court. This G2a, provision quoted, notes 140—Extension Bilis and of rule hereinbefore <$^> discharge primarily appears liable. not of one ‘if it the court that only part controversy primarily affects a the matter liable on severable, note, by granted payment and the issues shall of time of -extension only trial reversed new ordered holder without consent did not error,’ discharge him, as to that the affected such we ask Negotiable in view of Instru- grant court, in the event does not Law, (Yernop’s Supp. ment Ann. § Civ. St. motion, affirm the the trial 119); (article 6001-120) art. section 6001— matters court as to other than its rul- applying. question misjoinder ing of causes 3. Alteration Instruments admissibility in and as to the i®=32—“Mutiiat- avoiding Negotiable tion” of note it under appellant’s petition.” In- dence of Act strument defined. consideration, we careful After To constitute a “mutilation” of a note or the evidence satisfied that sufficient 'contract other Negotiable avoid it under will (Vernon’s establish Instrument Act Ann. . Digests (g^Fo'r see in all and KEY-NUMBER and Indexes