Dallam County v. S. H. Supply Co.
Decision Date | 30 April 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 6756.)<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Parties | DALLAM COUNTY v. S. H. SUPPLY CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; John M. Conley, Judge.
Suit by the S. H. Supply Company against Dallam County, W. J. Miller, W. B. Slaughter, and others, with a cross-bill by Dallam County against defendants Miller and Slaughter. Judgment for plaintiff and Slaughter against Miller and Dallam County, and the County appeals. Affirmed.
Smith, Crawford & Mead, of Beaumont, and J. E. Synnott, of Waco, for appellant. Lipscomb & Lipscomb, of Beaumont, for appellee S. H. Supply Co. Townes & Townes and R. E. Hardwicke, all of Beaumont, for appellee W. B. Slaughter.
On June 19, 1911, one W. J. Miller entered into a written contract with the commissioners' court of Dallam county, Tex., appellant herein, as follows:
Miller executed the bond provided for in said contract, and thereupon he was paid by Dallam county the $3,000, as provided by section 5 of said contract. About the 1st day of July, 1911, after receiving the said $3,000 under said contract, Miller went to Beaumont and purchased from S. H. Supply Company machinery and other things, including the well rig in question in this suit, paying and promising to pay therefor $3,161.14. He paid $1,500 in cash, and executed his note, or notes, for about $1,200 for a part of the balance of said purchase money, and made other purchases from other parties in Beaumont, paying cash therefor. When he purchased said machinery he told Mr. Boykin, the salesman, that the purchase was for himself and upon his own responsibility. This machinery was shipped to, and received by, Miller in Dallam county about August 1, 1911, and he began the boring of the well mentioned in said contract about that time. On December 11, 1911, Miller executed and delivered his promissory note for the sum of $1,232.71 to the First National Bank of Dalhart, Tex., and gave a mortgage on the property involved in this suit to secure the payment of said note. This note was later transferred to, and became the property of, W. B. Slaughter, a party to this suit. There was still due and unpaid on this note about $700 at date of trial of this case. On the 26th day of December 1911, Miller's indebtedness to S. H. Supply Company had been reduced to $822.85, for which sum he executed and delivered his note to said Supply Company, and also executed and delivered to said company a mortgage on the property in question to secure the payment of said note. Both of said mortgages were promptly and properly filed for record. The note due to the S. H. Supply Company became due, and by its original petition it entered this suit on September 3, 1912, against W. J. Miller in the district court of Jefferson county, at Beaumont, to recover the balance due on said note and for a foreclosure of its mortgage lien on the property in question. After Miller had waived issuance of citation and entered his appearance, the S. H. Supply Company learned that W. B. Slaughter and appellant, Dallam county, were making some claim to, or right in, said property in question, and therefore they were made parties defendant to said suit.
On the 7th day of October, 1912, appellant, Dallam county, filed its original answer, and, among other things, alleged as follows:
Dallam county also pleaded that Miller was its agent in the purchase of said machinery, and by its first amended answer on December 6, 1912, it pleaded as follows:
W. B. Slaughter answered setting up his note and mortgage, and praying for judgment and foreclosure.
On July 10, 1913, Supply Company suggested the death of W. J. Miller, and alleged that Mrs. W. J. Miller, widow of W. J. Miller, and Alfred and James Miller, the minor children of W. J. Miller, were the legal representatives of W. J. Miller, deceased, and that they lived in the state of Arizona, and had them made parties to the suit; proper notice being given to said parties.
On December 22, 1913, appellee Supply Company filed its second amended petition, and, after repeating the allegations of its former petition, made additional alternative plea and prayer, to wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Owen v. King
...is further held that this is true, although the other contracting party may have recourse against the agent. Dallam County v. S. H. Supply Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 176 S. W. 798, 803; 2 Tex. Jur. 558, § 154. We quote from the Dallam County Case, supra: "When credit is given to an agent acting f......
-
Dial v. Crosby County
...counties, and a county is one of the defendants, nevertheless the action must be brought in the defendant county. Dallam County v. S. H. Supply Co. (Tex.Civ. App.) 176 S.W. 798; Cobb v. H. C. Burt & Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 241 S.W. 185; Montague County v. Meadows (Tex.Civ. App.) 31 S.W. The Supr......
-
McGrew v. Hoy
...to dispense with them. Phillips v. Webb, 40 S. W. 1011; Thompson v. Howard, 154 S. W. 1065; Dees v. Thompson, 166 S. W. 56; Dallam County v. Supply Co., 176 S. W. 798; Friedman v. Cotton Oil Co., 177 S. W. 573; Munger Oil & Cotton Co. v. Beckham (Com. App.) 228 S. W. 128; Royal Neighbors v.......
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Golden
...Salliway v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W., 164 S. W. 1041; Coons v. Lain, 168 S. W. 981; Watson v. Patrick, 174 S. W. 632; Dallam County v. S. H. Supply Co., 176 S. W. 798; Texas Mid. R. R. v. Cummins, 156 S. W. 542; Court of Civil Appeals rules 24, 25, 31 (142 S. W. xii, xiii). The next assignm......