Cain v. Mack

Texas Supreme Court July 1, 1870

Cain v. Mack, 33 Tex. 135 (Tex. 1870)

Walker

Opinion of the Court

Walker, J.

We think it was competent for the plaintiff below to prove by parol the authority of W. T. Heal to sign the name *136of Mrs. M. Cheney, his mother, to the note sued on; and that there is no error appearing on the record.- There was no motion in the district court for a new trial, nor does any statement of facts accompany the record. (See Hart v. Ware, 8 Tex. R. 115.)

Where there is no motion for a new trial the judgment of the court below will not he disturbed on the ground that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. The judgment below is affirmed,

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Mary Cain and another v. Simon Mack
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Parol evidence is competent to prove that the maker of a note authorized another person to sign the maker’s name to the note. 2. A verdict will not bo disturbed because unsupported by. the evidence, unless there was a motion in the court below for a new trial. (Hart v. Ware, 8 Texas, 115, cited by the court.)