18 S.W. 434 (Tex. 1892), Hamm v. Drew

Citation:18 S.W. 434, 83 Tex. 77
Party Name:HAMM v. DREW et al.
Attorney:[83 Tex. 78] George H. Plowman, for appellant. [83 Tex. 79] Bassett, Seay & Muse, for appellees.
Case Date:January 19, 1892
Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Page 434

18 S.W. 434 (Tex. 1892)

83 Tex. 77



DREW et al.

Supreme Court of Texas

January 19, 1892

Commissioners' decision. Section B. Appeal from district court, Dallas county.

Suit by Frank Hamm, as receiver of the J. Stone & Sons Live-Stock Company. against James Drew and another. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendants. Reversed.

Page 435

[83 Tex. 78] George H. Plowman, for appellant.

[83 Tex. 79] Bassett, Seay & Muse, for appellees.


Suit was against Drew and Cockrell for the recovery of five stallions. Appellant sued as the receiver of the J. Stone & Sons Live-Stock Company. Appellee Drew, who had charge of the stallions for said company, sold them to the appellee Cockrell a short time before Hamm was appointed receiver. His authority to sell was denied. The petition, after setting out that Drew was the bailee of the stallions, to keep and manage the same for said company, and describing and alleging the value of the stallions, charged, in effect, that on the 21st day of May, 1886, Drew fraudulently converted said property to his own use with intent to defraud said company, and fuaudulently, unlawfully, and pretendingly conveyed said property to Alex. Cockrell, to whom all of which was well known, and that said defendants have and do unlawfully detain said property, and have converted same to their own use, and refuse to deliver same to plaintiff; and prayed judgment for the recovery of said property, costs of suit, and general relief. Drew answered, and disclaimed any right, title, or interest in the property; denied that he had possession thereof at the commencement of the suit, and that he set up any claim thereto. He denied that he sold said property to his co-defendant, Cockrell, for the purpose of defrauding the J. Stone & Sons Live-Stock Company; and alleged that the sale was in the regular line of business as agent and manager for said company, and that he received a full compensation for the property. He denied all the allegations in the petition in regard to himself, and asked to be allowed to go hence, etc. He was discharged by the court on his disclaimer, with his costs. [83 Tex. 80] Defendant Cockrell denied generally all and singular the allegations in plaintiff's petition, and answered specially that before the commencement of the suit he purchased the property in controversy, paying a full and valuable...

To continue reading