Appellee approves appellant’s statement of the nature and result of the suit, which is as follows:
“As assignee of Planters’ Bonded Warehouse Company, appellant sued appellee as the maker of a negotiable promissory note, dated February 26, 1921, for the sum of $500, bearing interest at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum, and containing an attorney’s fee clause. Appellee admitted execution and delivery of note, but alleged that said note was not binding on it as between itself and original payee, and, further, that appellant was not an innocent purchaser, for value, without notice, in due course of trade, .etc. Upon special issues, the jury found as follows: (a) That appellee executed and delivered said note to an agent of Planters’ Bonded Warehouse Company, with the agreement that said note should not become effective and a binding obligation, but should be returned to appellee, unless said warehouse company should build a warehouse in Devine, Tex., in time1 for crop of 1921; and (b) that appellant’s cashier had actual knowledge, at or prior to purchase of note by appellant, of such agreement between appellee and said agent of warehouse company.”
In deference to the verdict of the jury, the trial court rendered judgment that the plaintiff below, the Adams National Bank, recover nothing of the defendant, Adams Company. The bank has appealed. The general facts of the transaction involved as well as the questions of law are stated in detail in the reported case of Bank v. Stone (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S. W. 989, and need not he repeated here.
It is sufficient to say that there.is no evidence in the present case that when purchasing the note the officials of the bank had any knowledge whatever of the particular facts or circumstances under which appellee executed or delivered the note in controversy, or of any agreement had between the maker *310and payee which would in any contingency relieve appellee of liability. This point is made in appellant’s ■ second proposition of law, and appellee’s only reply thereto is that:
“Appellant’s second proposition would be a correct statement of the law if its statement, that there was no evidence of appellant’s knowledge of the conditions under which said note was given, were true, but the record herein will not support the statement made.”
But appellee does not point out any testimony showing or tending to show such knowledge, although definitely challenged to do so by appellant. We have carefully scrutinized the statement of facts and find no such evidence. There being no such evidence adduced, the trial court should have directed a verdict for appellant, as requested by it.
The judgment will be reversed and judgment hero rendered that appellant have and recover of appellee the amount of the note in suit, including principal, interest, and attorney’s fees, as stipulated, together with all costs in this and the trial court.