Beauchamp v. Chester
| Decision Date | 28 April 1905 |
| Citation | 86 S.W. 1055 |
| Parties | BEAUCHAMP v. CHESTER et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; A. T. Watts, Judge.
Action by E. M. Chester against C. H. Beauchamp, Jr., and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Beauchamp appeals. Reversed and rendered.
L. A. Carlton and E. E. Townes, for appellant. Chester, Crawford & Chester, for appellees.
This suit was brought by E. M. Chester against C. H. Beauchamp, Jr., as maker, and W. A. Myrick, as indorser, of a certain promissory note for $3,000, and recovery was sought against both for the principal and 6 per cent. interest. The defendant Beauchamp interposed his plea of privilege to be sued in the county of Dalles, where he resided. The court, upon hearing, overruled the plea, tried the case on its merits, and rendered judgment as prayed for against the maker and indorser. Beauchamp has appealed, and assails as error the action of the court in refusing to sustain the plea.
The note sued on was executed by Beauchamp as alleged, was payable to Myrick in Dallas county, where Beauchamp lived at the date of its execution, at the time of bringing the suit, and where he yet resides. Myrick was a resident of Jefferson county. The petition discloses the capacity in which each of the defendants is sued, and it is apparent from its face that at the time it was filed the time had passed when his liability as indorser could be fixed either by suit or protest. There was no waiver of these formalities, and Myrick filed a general demurrer and denial in the cause. According to Myrick's testimony, he was interested in the corporation of Myrick Bros., and was secretary and treasurer of the concern. After the execution of the note by Beauchamp he indorsed it in blank, and turned it over to the corporation, and it was credited upon an account which the corporation held against Myrick. That he thereafter placed it in the hands of plaintiff, who was a member of the law firm of Chester, Crawford & Chester, with instructions to retain one-third for their services, etc., and turn the remainder over to Myrick Bros. He admitted he had filed the general denial, but did not say whether he would interpose an effective defense or not. That Beauchamp was solvent, and he wanted the corporation to get its judgment against the maker. It is not pretended that he has waived the fixing of liability in any other way except by failing to interpose the specific plea that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCamant v. McCamant
...cause of action against Mrs. McCamant as an indorser, and was bad as against a general demurrer. In the case of Beauchamp v. Chester et al., 39 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 86 S. W. 1055, it is held that a petition, disclosing that defendant is sued as an indorser, and that the time has passed when ......
-
Richardson v. D. S. Cage Co.
...et al. v. Emanuel (Tex. Civ. App.) 228 S. W. 1015; Railway Co. v. Land & Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S. W. 324; Beauchamp v. Chester, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 86 S. W. 1055; Groos v. Brewster (Tex. Civ. App.) 55 S. W. In the present case we do not think the plaintiff has alleged sufficient......
-
Fairbanks v. Hidalgo County
...Co. v. Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S. W. 324; Railway Co. v. Waddell Bros., 38 Tex. Civ. App. 434, 86 S. W. 655; Beachamp v. Chester, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 86 S. W. 1055; Goggan v. Morrison (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 119; Shaw v. Stinson (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. W. 505; Bingham v. Emanue......
-
Bingham v. Emanuel
...defendant. See K. C., P. & G. Ry. Co. v. Bermea Land & Lumber Co., 54 S. W. 324; Girand v. Barnard, 47 S. W. 482; Beauchamp v. Chester, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 86 S. W. 1055; Groos v. Brewster, 55 S. W. The foregoing authorities are conclusive and controlling in the present suit, aside from ......