Blum v. Simpson

Decision Date30 October 1888
Citation9 S.W. 662
PartiesBLUM <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> SIMPSON.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

conferred with Silas Baggett, his father-in-law, a man of means, who was engaged in shaving paper, and had fine business qualities. Baggett examined the record for liens, and, finding none, assisted in making the trade, which was consummated by drawing up a deed for the store-house, and bill of sale of the goods. The purchase price was $3,000, of which $800 was paid in cash, and for the residue 3 notes were executed, payable to W. F. McLure, a brother to I. A. McLure, or bearer, at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively, bearing 10 per cent. interest. The deed was made on May 10th, acknowledged by McLure and wife on the 10th and 11th, but it was not recorded until July 10th. No inventory was taken, as by the last inventory the goods were worth $2,000 to $2,200, and Simpson thought them about the same in amount at the time of the purchase. Simpson knew nothing of W F. McLure; and wishing to know why the notes were made payable to him, was told that he was his partner living in Alabama, and that, as the cash payment was made to I. A. McLure, it was right that the notes should be payable to his brother. The special tax receipt as tobacco dealer was issued in I. A. McLure's name, alone. Simpson knew that letters sometimes came to W. F. McLure and company. He testified that he did not know, and did not think it his business to inquire, whether McLure was in debt; but it was proven that he knew of a drummer coming to Rogers, and taking several bales of cotton from McLure on a debt. Hilliard testified that he told Simpson that McLure proposed to pay all his debts, but, after conversing with Simpson and Baggett, said that he was not positive that he had told Simpson anything about McLure's debts. A few days after the trade was made McLure proposed to sell the notes to Baggett, to which Baggett agreed; the discount being 22 per cent., Baggett letting him have $1,000 down upon his agreement to get Simpson to give a deed of trust to secure the notes. After the sale of the notes Baggett was informed that he was about to be garnished as a debtor of McLure by L. & H. Blum, the plaintiffs herein; and Baggett and McLure after the issue, but before the service of the garnishment, rescinded the trade, upon which Baggett answered that he owed McLure nothing. McLure then sold the notes to W. W. Baggett, Silas Baggett's brother, who turned them over to Silas Baggett to collect. In 1884, Simpson failed in business, and transferred his notes and accounts to Silas Baggett to pay the balance on the notes. McLure showed no authority from his brother to sell the property, but asserted that he was his authorized agent. In January before the trade McLure owed about $3,000; was doing a business of $75 per day, which continued until he sold out. So far as appeared, McLure paid no debts during the time or afterwards, except that Hilliard testified that he paid $1,000, but did not say to whom. An agent of the plaintiffs having tried in vain a few days after the sale to get their debt out of McLure, about $2,200, testified that Baggett told him that McLure was sharp and unscrupulous; that he had bought the notes, and was sure McLure did not intend to pay any one; and that McLure told him (Baggett) that it was no one's business if he wanted to scale his debts, and that he was holding back $800 to insure the arrival of the goods in transit. The agent, Oppenheimer, said that upon this statement he took the garnishment. Baggett denied making the statements. McLure offered to turn over notes and accounts to plaintiffs to the amount of their debt, which they re...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Durrett v. Chenault
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 13 Abril 1921
    ... ... Traylor v. Townsend, 61 Tex. 144; Blum v. McBride, 69 Tex. 60, 5 S. W. 641; Blum v. Simpson, 66 Tex. 84, 17 S. W. 402; Id., 71 Tex. 628, 9 S. W. 662; Humphries v. Freeman, 22 Tex. 45; ... ...
  • Sonnenschein v. Bartels
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 20 Septiembre 1893
    ... ... Dunn, 6 Neb. 93; Knower v. Cadden Clothing Co., ... 57 Conn. 202, 17 A. 580; Bollman v. Lucas, 22 Neb ... 796, 36 N.W. 465; Blum v. Simpson, 71 Tex. 628, 9 ... S.W. 662; Cox v. Cox, 39 Kan. 121, 17 P. 847 ...          The ... plaintiffs in error, in their motion ... ...
  • Baze v. Island City Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 14 Febrero 1906
    ...Mills v. Howeth, 19 Tex. 257, 70 Am. Dec. 331; Traylor v. Townsend, 61 Tex. 144; Blum v. Simpson, 66 Tex. 84, 17 S. W. 402; Blum v. Simpson, 71 Tex. 628, 9 S. W. 662. Undoubtedly Lewis was endeavoring to defeat the claims of his creditors, and appellant must have known of his intention, and......
  • Davis v. Getchell
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 16 Septiembre 1891
    ... ... 812; Weber v. Rothchild, 15 P ... 652 [Ore.]; Redhead v. Pratt, 33 N.W. 382 [Ia.]; ... Wing v. Miller, 20 P. 120 [Kan.]; Blum v. Simpson, 9 ... S.W. 662 ...          Allen, ... Robinson & Reed, contra, cited: State v. Arthur, 23 ... Iowa 430, 432; Dyer v ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT