# Hidalgo v. Surety Savings and Loan Association

> Texas Supreme Court · February 3, 1971 · 14 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 217

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673713

## Case

- **Full name:** Carolina E. HIDALGO, a Femme Sole, Petitioner, v. SURETY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 3, 1971
- **Citations:** 14 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 217; 462 S.W.2d 540; 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 879; 1971 Tex. LEXIS 265
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Walker
- **Judges:** Calvert, Walker, Reavley
- **Cited by:** 396 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673713

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing whether sworn pleadings may be considered summary judgment proof and holding "that orderly judicial administration will be better served in the long run if we refuse to regard pleadings, even if sworn, as summary judgment evidence"
- stating similarity in trial and summary judgment proceedings that both depend on independently produced evidence
- holding that pleadings cannot be regarded as summary judgment evidence

## Opinion text

WALKER, Justice
(concurring).
While I concur in the judgment rendered in this case, I would not go out of my way, as the Court does, to hold that a verified pleading may never constitute proof in a summary judgment proceeding. That question is not squarely presented for decision here. In' support of the contention that it is a holder in due course, Surety relies solely upon the allegations of the petition, verified by its attorney, that it acquired the note for a valuable consideration and became a holder in due course. These allegations are mere conclusions, expressly authorized for pleading purposes but unacceptable as proof in summary judgment proceedings. Rules 45 and 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Associates Discount Corp. v. Rattan Chevrolet, Inc., Tex. Sup., 462 S.W.2d 546 .
If a live pleading states facts in sufficient detail and is verified by one who clearly has personal knowledge of the facts and is clearly competent to testify to the matters *546 stated, it is my opinion that the pleading should be given the same effect as any other affidavit filed in the case.
REAVLEY, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673713. Public record. Not legal advice.