*1 REPORTER WESTERN SOUTH 279 Tiller, HODGES, appellee, against appellant. We retaxed, J. The assessed against appellants, tri- filed this suit West decree of the overrule this motion. Gray, erro- and wife Bid to recover in in the matter al court opinion promissory According rendered balance due on three notes and to the neous. only commit- error to H. N. upon a of land. it was foreclose vendor’s lien on a tract the main case trial, party upon was so material Nelson was made ted require claiming ground rendition reversal and through portion no fault It was terest in land. The error decree. of ed protest- consistently appellant, against upon had who throughout had shown that Bid trial proceedings Gray, Mattie it transferred his interest to Gray, as- she had both courts. wife West sumed the ‘that point appreciate obligations. payment He We of his largely disposition off- costs judgment his was limitation. awarded by him in the plead- recovered amount sets defendants appealed here affirmed payment amount of ed hardship is thus behalf, given. the notes were for which But it would worked In inequita- precedent, January, 1921, but would all a balance of found that the costs well, with They to tax ble as also notes. due re- in no wise for which was of an error been sold found that acre, has consist- sponsible, judg- A short. it was 23 acres protested ently courts. conformity in both ment was findings with the entered in Appellee’s be overruled. must motion jury. testimony about which there is no dis substantially following pute shows facts: Adams, Iola In Tiller, of land mother of Mrs. a tract TILLER. et al. v. GRAY as “206 acres” to West Bid described Gray. part payment She took in their four Texarkana. Texas. (Court of Civil each, bearing notes for the sum of Granted terest rate anmtm payable from date. The notes On Motion thereafter till of them all 3rear Mrs. Adams died sometime leaving prior <&wkey;3l5(3) purchaser 1. Vendor —Evidence tending from sale an estate and several children. to show In entirely December, 1921, her children met for the had been of land of settlement support verdict held not dividing property. their mother’s plaintiff. They among found- the assets three of the on notes for due In on sale of balance vendor’s Being notes above referred to. unable to de tending to that in- land evidence show due, they termine how much was still entirely extinguished at debtedness time of settlement had ing conference West Accord between held not to plaintiff. appellee, sustain verdict deducting all the credits claimed Compromise <&wkey;G7(2) —De- there was a balance due estopped to claim that indebted- fendants not agreed upon by that sum all the inter of land ness from sale parties. ested The notes were then taken In suit on notes and to foreclose vendor’s heirs, upon Dr. one of the defendants, lien on land sold defendants were basis, as a of his interest in admission of payment, plaintiff pur- sum due to claim where assigned mother’s Later he estate. sold and chased notes with un- conditions the notes for a valuable consideration to der which settlement was and defendants sister, in this suit. The notes plaintiff making relied ment and settle- and lien had been extended from ascertaining what amount was due. time, question' so no of limitation was presented. after Mrs. Tiller had Appeal from District Panola Coun- purchased notes, another contract of ex Brockfield, Judge. Charles D. by Gray wife, executed tension which it was recited Tiller Action Julia Judgment .others. family balance on as the and for defendant'Bid further settlement. No were made appeal. defendants Reversed and remanded. notes, and no claim of Long Strong, N. Nelson made until after the all of full institution of Carthage, shall, Carter, Charles E. of Mar- this suit. appellants. appeal appellants contend in this Baker, & Duran Woolworth and B. W. Carthage, appellee. 1920; the extension of the debt there- topic other cases <§=»Eor see in all Indexes KEY-NUMBER er debts notes. point hearing that made at what to discredit wife, those.indorsed made in 1921 was at a ascertain not $1,448. They bore interest at the rate of 10 notes handwriting of Mrs. the facts Whether the further It note bore Adams, land had been to while homestead more cipal was a multiplied or Row *2 Tex.) signed, evidenced found, there is merit in the volved Four the notes, purchase error without discussion. cumbered also contended evidenced case should be Gray “Interest ed to Appellants insist in their motion for a re- The We overrule the The court appears say, aggregate which the purchase-money than was made $184, out dnd to conclude leaving jury In his investigation, receipts.. was founded had besides Mrs. Adams’ Adams. that any specific On Motion for the correct amount due. paid money wife testified was not from was a matter conveyed erred in their shows that the one of this case. some these the indorsements the amount of the $1,264,the net amount of the annum from date. note. the set on on the credits particular payments necessary testimony the sum of 23of without consideration. indorsed, those to be testimony Gray debt to be the first price, should Grays, aside this note receipts, Those right, amounted them therefore since we have concluded that notes were executed On each on December handwriting, motion. The acres. owed evidenced they applied. the debt because the evidence paid.- The law, to other was it could to receipts, he apparently if he note did the per acre, $362, aggregating other than those were which entered conclusions purchase Mrs. Adams oth- did satisfy subtracted from not make acre, purchase-money fair, assignments the settlement That the affirming Gray distinct not state that to land was is not shown. 12-12, not saw prepared been affirmed. they not be following: something- and there tirely and made payments, unable were shortage, however, the the GRAY v. We can- the by amount- owe, interest proper, money. record 1921. which 1918.” After made court other from prin- computed It note first dence this (279 not the the in- he or is ‘3.W.) TILLER terest on amount of notes by Adams, If ignore which ment with the $626.64. $1,200 ber December but are to the tal amount ing wife testified to ance three something ments, court dorsed Grays debtedness appellants are These timony settlement in credited amounted and there made that due. If But wife to read gregating make ditions under which the settlement was dence surrendered to anything, an appellee settlement, gate cember, 1918, ^[1] [2] The the settlement between dispute interested notes receipts of of $482.04 the settlement made in years, on the trial credits showed that there figures Adding owed1 are as payments $2,275.25 but approximately plea evidence stated December That without admission the $1,388.06, from testimony over ignorant the claimed 15, 1918, supplemented they the note. unsigned, write, the The interest on those is no party. $1,793.16. which the trial payments, from jury might principal the Grays correctness of due. shows that instead of calculations, the $700 still due. did, paid. the absence the time estoppel might first note. other sums and wife as due on the could D'ecember credited December, 1921, any knowledge shows that pleads, been induced to dispute, credits, including $626.64. 15, 1918, the last negroes the interest on in the not be and she showed Whilg It is they and- amounted to handwriting It showing so. showed that and her addition to those to claim 1921. It is true the first and interest the Subtracting each the was offered ascertain true witnesses for however, gave on discredit the tes estoppel That sum added of and were being There 15, 1918, stranger they exactly her 15th disregard December, 1921, paid, settlement, we court parties Gray note had those the any the was payments be available. those about the that the $482.04 brothers time of agents of the con trusted en present on Decem- December, the payments, payments. was noth evidenced aggregate first could we have purchase was still made receipts. is based what, and his $405.10. correct, the to date to that the the unable in evi- of De- settle owing credit those been wife note pay bal- evi- not the did ag- in to- in- on to if *3 case, petition, Plaintiff’s was filed on Peb-. der in this ruary 24, 1925, alleges, more in substance: remand order and developed fully another trial. “That “is American Bank State day and has 1st been at all times since the conducting Tex.; July, 1924, carrying bank on and ing pellee insurance ap Harrisburg, business O. Austin is commissioner of Charles Texas, banking state of and for the acting authority and, as and of Ms under virtue AUSTIN, State v. HARRISBURG CITY OF day such, February, 21st about the * Banking, al. et Commissioner of power 1925, A. him virtue of the D. vested banking commissioner, posses as such took Bank, sion State of the American for (Court of Texas. Galveston. of Civil liquidating the un the avowed der the same 19, Denied banking provisions laws of the 7, yet, Texas, within state of has not and plaintiff, appoint banking <&wkey;80(2) and named of this —Claim for Banks bank; agent “any liquidating ed a for said that here within bank is insolvent bonds held - tofore, wit, presented on or about the must be of statute claim” appellant September, A. D. banking commissioner. municipal $45,000 including sale, for issue of bonds city bonds insolvent held Claim gas bonds, $20,000 im of street Sayles’ Ann. Yemon’s within. bank held to be provement sewerage bonds, $10,000 of requiring presentation art. Civ. St. “any appellant bonds, and advertised said bonds ap- banking commissioner claim” to for sale and bonds, Bank bids for the sale of said received rejection proval main- suit can be before and that American State tained thereon. placed ther.efor, wit, bid <3=o80(2) banking of interest, and1 2. Banks and accrued such bid —Claimant same; personal property can- highest insolvent bank held was the bid received assumption banking were received therefor time said bids said not sue rejected claim. plaintiff bonds, would its sale said of- officers commissioner rep banking bank commissioner, of said Right given to the resented and declared to1 that said Sayles’ 1914, art. under Ann. Civ. St. Yernon’s amply purchase, solvent, bank was able to validity pass insol- of claims pay bonds, retain said and that said necessarily power banks, carries with it vent large surplus bank was solvent in ex and, questions fact, law and decide plaintiff liability, (ap cess of and all him, presented must be assumed claim is representations pellant), relying said validity in of its ac- will decide president statements of said him, and facts the law before cordance with bank, believing true, the same ac property personal held hence claimant solvent rejected presenting cepted bid, such to deliver to said assume that he bank cannot would have aforesaid, thereafter, acceptance defendant in accordance thereof, bonds bring suit thereon before its claim bid and the said it to plaintiff did deliver said defendant bank said said bonds received bank a Appeal from District Harris Coun- deposit slip showing deposit or statement Judge. Monteith, E.W. appellant in the credit of this the amount of bid, part by City said of said but received no Suit Charles said time.” Austin, Banking, State Commissioner of sustaining From an and another. named defendant’s dismissing order alleged: It is further in abatement and suit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. American That the defendant Bank was State rep- in truth and fact insolvent at the time it Cooper, J. Bracewell H. S. both of thereby resented to be solvent and itself ob- Houston, appellant. bonds; possession of tained Guynes Sanders, Houston, Charles “is now said Austin pellee. assets, including bank belonging all of its bonds plaintiff hereinbefore al- leged, the after the said defendant possession PLEASANTS, not informed as to J.C. of Harris- insolvency and condition of said bank until

burg, municipal8corporation of Harris coun- Charles O. Austin took ty organized under title 22 of the Revised thereof; the said Charles O. state, brought Statutes of this liquidating agent may ap- as he Austin and such Austin, banking Charles O. state point bank as a will now in will list bonds of said commissioner, and the American State Bank part bank, assets of said Harrisburg, Tex,, corporation banking dispose of undertake to sell organized bank, and, chartered under the laws of as a of the assets of said if sold <g=>For other oases see same and Indexes topic and KEY-NUMBER in February * Writ error refused This on 15, added sum from amounts to the sum of date of principal notes makes to December $1,011.20. aggre- for all of did evidence now give him credit receipts conclusively he for all produced, shows that but the they he 279S.W.—32 279 SOUTH WESTERN REPORTER state, The mistake was that to recover title and liad jointly interested, pellee and bonds of the others of the face alleged of value of do not think the which it is are we reason wrongfully estoppel from the withheld is available. plaintiff by ren- feel inclined defendants. We do not ‘