Anderson v. Walker
Decision Date | 22 February 1899 |
Citation | 49 S.W. 937 |
Parties | ANDERSON et al. v. WALKER, County Judge, et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Travis county; R. E. Brooks, Judge.
Action by A. S. Walker, as county judge of Travis county, against C. Ed. Anderson and others, sureties on the bond of A. J. Jernigan, county treasurer. Defendants impleaded the Austin National Bank and E. P. Wilmot, its president. From a judgment against them, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Ward & James, Rector & Rector, and J. R. Hamilton, for appellants. Walton & Hill and West & Cochran, for appellee bank.
A. S. Walker, as county judge of Travis county, instituted this suit against Anderson and others upon two official bonds given by A. J. Jernigan, as treasurer of Travis county, the defendants being sureties on both bonds.
The petition, among others, contains the following allegations:
The defendants interposed a general demurrer and special exceptions to the plaintiff's petition, because it failed to show how much of the general county funds, and how much of the school funds, Jernigan had received and disbursed, and what proportion of the defalcation was school funds, and what proportion general county funds. These exceptions were overruled. They also impleaded the Austin National Bank and E. P. Wilmot, its president. The court sustained a general demurrer interposed by Wilmot. The judgment recites that the bondsmen excepted to this ruling, but dismissed their cross action against Wilmot.
The original pleading filed by the bondsmen against the bank charges, in substance, that the bank and Jernigan entered into a conspiracy by which they undertook, without lawful authority, to apply $10,000 of Travis county's funds, which Jernigan, as county treasurer, had deposited in the bank, to the payment of an individual debt owing by Jernigan to the bank; and it charges the bank with conversion of the $10,000, and asks for a recovery against it for that sum. It also contains some averments on the subject of estoppel, but these averments are repeated in supplemental pleading filed by the bondsmen, which will hereafter be copied. The court overruled a general demurrer interposed by the bank to the original cross action, but sustained exceptions to so much of it as related to the question of estoppel. The bondsmen then filed the following supplemental pleading (omitting formal parts):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lawson v. Baker
...649; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Wilkinson Co., 109 Miss. 879, 69 South. 865; Watson v. El Paso County, 202 S. W. 126; Anderson v. Walker, 49 S. W. 937; In re State Treasurer's Settlement, 51 Neb. 116, 70 N. W. 532, 36 L. R. A. 746; Natl. Bank of Crete v. Bartley State Treasurer, ......
-
State ex rel. Elberta Peach & Land Company v. Chicago Bonding & Surety Company
... ... had the legal title to the bank credit. [Michie on Banks and ... Banking, sec. 130 (d); Anderson v. Walker, 49 S.W ... 937; [279 Mo. 550] Union School Twp. v. Bank, 102 ... Ind. 464, 2 N.E. 194.] And the bank was bound to pay his ... ...
-
State v. Chacago Bonding & Surety Co.
...him as receiver, and in that capacity he had the legal title to the bank credit. Michie on Banks and Banking, § 130 (d); Anderson v. Walker (Tex. Civ. App.) 49 S. W. 937; Union School Twp. v. Bank, 102 Ind. 464, 2 N. E. 194. And the bank was bound to pay his checks when in proper form, for ......
-
The State ex rel. Hospes v. Branch
...act upon that conduct in such a manner as to change his position to another, whereby he is harmed. [2 Pomeroy Eq. Jur., sec. 805; Anderson v. Walker 49 S.W. 937.] record does not disclose that defendant Titman, administrator herein, or his principal, who was surety on the curator bond, ever......