OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant contends in his motion for rehearing that we committed error in affirming the trial court judgment granting a summary judgment to the Bank. He asserts that we failed to consider the defense of want of consideration, the defense of whether the notes in question were funded, and the defense of scope of employment of the Bank officer.
We did consider these matters and ruled in the Bank’s favor.
Appellant knew when he signed the notes, endorsed the cashier’s checks and delivered them to Hillin that Hillin was going to present the notes to a teller, and that the teller was going to give the money to Hillin. The teller did exactly what appellant expected, and the fact that appellant did not physically handle the money does not change the nature of the transaction. Appellant knew that the transaction was a loan from the Bank to appellant, and a contemporaneous loan from appellant to Hillin. His recourse, if any, is against Hil-lin, and not against the Bank.
The consideration for the notes is appellant’s promise to pay the Bank the money the Bank loaned him, which he in turn loaned to Hillin. Furthermore, in borrowing the money from appellant, Hillin was acting for his own personal interest and not in the scope of his employment with the Bank. See: Grayson County National Bank v. Hall, 91 S.W. 807, (Tex.Civ.App.-1906, no writ); Hawkins v. First National Bank of Canyon, 175 S.W. 163, (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1915, no writ); National Bank of Commerce v. Rogers, 125 S.W.2d 632, (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston, 1938, writ denied, jud. corr.)
We have considered all points on the motion for rehearing and they are overruled.