M. R. Perkins Et Al. v. Rex A. Crittenden

Rex Crittenden obtained a summary judgment against M. R. Perkins and C. C. Carroll, Jr., on a promissory note executed by them to Crittenden. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 447 S.W.2d 427. We reverse. We hold that it was error to render summary judgment on the note because (1) a copy of the note, not the original, was attached to the petition, and (2) instead of accompanying the copy of the note attached to the petition with a sworn affidavit as prescribed by Rule 166-A(e), it was simply acknowledged; i.e., the notary certified that Crittenden executed "the same" for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. In the face of a general denial, there was therefore no summary judgment proof that Crittenden was the owner or holder of the note.