Eddingston v. Acom
Decision Date | 15 February 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 1048.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 259 S.W. 948 |
Parties | EDDINGSTON et al. v. ACOM. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County.
Action by O. H. Acom against A. T. Eddingston and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
E. A. McDowell, Jno. M. Conley, and P. D. Renfro, all of Beaumont, for appellants.
Smith, Crawford & Sonfield, B. F. Pye, and J. M. Cormack, all of Beaumont, for appellee.
On the 1st day of January, A. D. 1919, appellant on the one part and G. O. Daniels and L. L. Eden on the other entered into the following contract:
The parties to this contract undertook to perform its conditions in raising the rice crops. Daniels and Eden became heavily involved, and because of the fall in the value of rice were made wholly insolvent. In raising the crops they bought supplies from appellee, evidenced by an open account in the sum of $2,416.20, and by a promissory note executed to appellee by Daniels and Eden in the sum of $2,905.87. After Daniels and Eden had failed to pay the debts against them incurred in raising the rice crops, they sold and assigned to appellant certain tools, machinery, and grain, etc., executing to him a bill of sale therefor. On the trial of this case appellee demanded of appellant the production of this bill of sale, but he refused to produce the same, though admitting that it was in the possession of his attorney. After appellant had refused to produce the written bill of sale, G. O. Daniels testified as follows as to the contents of same:
In the execution of the original contract, as set out above, nothing was done by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Gilmore
...of partnership. Fink v. Brown, supra; Southern Surety Co. v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 310; Eddingston v. Acom, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 948. The presumption may be aided or overcome by the presence or absence of other partnership attributes indicative of the intent o......
-
Wolverton v. Thomas, 2414.
...Tex. Com.App., 215 S.W. 846; Ogus, Rabinovich & Ogus Co. v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co., Tex.Com.App., 252 S.W. 1048; Eddingston v. Acom, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S. W. 948. These authorities are believed to be sound and applicable to the facts of those cases, but the facts of the instant case clear......
-
Holliday v. Taylor
...40 Am.Jur. p. 170, Sec. 58; 68 C.J.S., Partnership, § 29 a (2), p. 448; Fink v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 215 S.W. 846; Eddingston v. Acom, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 948, pt. 1 (er.dis.); Davis v. Gilmore, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W.2d 671, pt. 7 We think the trial court was warranted in concluding from......
-
Southern Surety Co. v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n
...contractor and subcontractor. Fink v. Brown (Tex. Com. App.) 215 S. W. 847 et seq., and authorities there cited; Eddingston v. Acom (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 948, 951, par. 2 (writ dismissed); Ogus, Rabinovich & Ogus Co. v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 252 S. W. 1048, 1051; H......