Barton v. R. P. Ash & Co.

• Decision Date: 13 February 1913
• Citation: 154 S.W. 608
• Parties: BARTON v. R. P. ASH & CO.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

154 S.W. 608

BARTON v. R. P. ASH & CO.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

February 13, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Panola County; W. C. Buford, Judge.

Action by R. P. Ash & Co. against J. W. Barton and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant Barton appeals. Reformed and affirmed.

W. R. Anderson and H. N. Nelson, both of Carthage, for appellant. Brooke & Woolworth, of Carthage, for appellees.

WILLSON, C. J.

The suit was by appellees against appellant and one H. R. Jones on two promissory notes, each dated January 9, 1911, payable to appellees' order on or before March 15, 1911. One of the notes was for $1,000, interest and attorneys' fees. It appeared to have been executed by H. R. Jones, and was shown to be entitled to a credit May 14, 1911, of $992.92. The other note was for $1,500, interest and attorneys' fees. It appeared to have been executed by H. R. Jones and by appellant. It was shown that the notes were given for a part of the purchase price of a stock of goods, wares, and merchandise sold by appellees to appellant and said Jones, who engaged in business as partners under the firm name of "H. R. Jones." The trial was before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in appellees' favor against both appellant and Jones for the sum of $1,902.31, as the amount of the principal, interest, and attorneys' fees due on the notes. Appellant proved that after he and Jones purchased the goods he sold his interest in same to Jones, who assumed to pay the indebtedness due by the firm. The court therefore rendered judgment over against Jones in appellant's favor for the sum adjudged against him in favor of appellees. The appeal is prosecuted by appellant alone.

Appellant complains of the action of the court in overruling his motion to continue the cause, made when it was called for trial, and of the action of the court in striking the case from the jury docket and in trying it without a jury. The rulings complained of will not be reviewed because not presented in bills of exceptions as required by rule 55 for district and county courts (142 S. W. xxi). Trabue v. Cook, 124 S. W. 456.

It is insisted that the court erred in rendering judgment against appellant for the balance due on the $1,000 note, "because" it is asserted in the brief: "The testimony shows that the $1,000 note was the individual note of Jones." We find no such testimony in the record. On the contrary, it was undisputed that the note was given for part of the price of goods purchased by appellant and Jones to carry on the business they engaged in as partners. This being true, and it being also true that appellant and Jones carried on their business as partners in...