Ford v. McBryde
| Decision Date | 01 January 1876 |
| Citation | 45 Tex. 498 |
| Parties | H. D. FORD AND G. W. BROWN v. D. MCBRYDE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Karnes. Tried below before the Hon. Daniel D. Claiborne.
Duncan McBryde sued H. D. Ford and G. W. Brown, alleging that in March, 1871, plaintiff, at Ford's request, loaned him $2,500 coin, upon the verbal agreement that plaintiff was to advance said sum to Ford as a loan, to be used by Ford in purchasing a drove of beef cattle for the Kansas markets, the drove to consist of six hundred head, Ford, upon the sale, to return the money advanced, and, in lieu of interest, to pay the one half of the net profits upon half of the drove, Ford, however, to receive no wages for his own services; that at the time the money was advanced the defendant Brown was an equal partner with Ford, though plaintiff did not know of such partnership; that the money had been invested in cattle and in the business of Ford & Brown; that Ford had sold the cattle in the latter part of 1871, and had paid to plaintiff $1,000. Judgment was asked for $1,500, and for an account of the business, &c.
Defendants pleaded a general demurrer and general denial, denied the existence of partnership between themselves. Ford denied borrowing any money of plaintiff, and alleged that he and plaintiff were partners in the cattle business, and that the $2,500 received by him from plaintiff was received as the plaintiff's portion of the capital invested; that the partnership sustained heavy loss. A statement of the partnership transactions was set up, and Ford in reconvention claimed $700, as due from plaintiff as his part of the losses; Ford also notified plaintiff to produce certain articles of partnership, signed by them, and in the plaintiff's possession.
These articles were produced, and are as follows:
+-----------------------+
¦“THE STATE OF TEXAS, ¦)¦
+---------------------+-¦
¦County of Karnes. ¦)¦
+-----------------------+
This agreement made by and between D. McBryde a H. D. Ford, of the said county and State, as follows:
Whereas the above-named parties entered into a partnership for the purpose of purchasing and driving a drove of beef cattle to Kansas, agree, to wit:
They, the said parties, do purchase a lot of beeves, some five or six hundred head in number, upon which D. McBryde advances $2,500 gold, and that he have nothing more to do with said cattle so far as gathering, managing, or selling the same is concerned; but that said Ford do superintend the gathering, managing, or selling the same, and all else pertaining to the interest of the said parties, and that after the cattle are sold and all expenses of driving and the purchasemoney paid, and the $2,500 advanced by McBryde, then the profits, if any, to be equally divided between the said parties. They are to be equal in the purchase, equal in the losses, and in all profits arising or accruing from said drove of cattle. And the said Ford further agrees not to charge anything for his time or trouble while attending to said business.
+-----------------------+
¦(Signed,)¦H. D. FORD, ¦
+---------+-------------¦
¦ ¦D. MCBRYDE.” ¦
+-----------------------+
“Attest:
G. W. BROWN.
April 29, 1871.”
Plaintiff declared under oath that he signed the instrument without knowing its contents; that the last seven lines of the paper were not read to him, plaintiff not being able to read; and that his signature was obtained to it by the false impression produced upon his mind by the way it was read, and by the fraudulent acts and representations of Brown, who at the time pretended to be disinterested, and that the instrument would secure plaintiff in his money, &c.
The testimony was conflicting. There are no exceptions to the charge of the court--all instructions asked by defendants were given. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,500, upon which verdict judgment was rendered.
Motion for new trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.
...were not called upon to ask special charges curing the vices in the charge. Chamblee v. Tarbox, 27 Tex. 140, 84 Am. Dec. 614; Ford v. McBryde, 45 Tex. 498; Bergstroem v. State, 58 Tex. 92; Railway v. Rowland, 90 Tex. 365, 38 S. W. The allegations of the petition were sufficient to raise the......
-
Myer v. Fruin
...it was his duty to ask a special charge. Railroad Co. v. Beard, 68 Tex. 265, 4 S. W. Rep. 483; Peeler v. Guilkey, 27 Tex. 355; Ford v. McBryde, 45 Tex. 498. The failure to instruct the jury upon issues made by the pleadings and evidence is technical error, but is not reversible "unless spec......
- Davis v. El
-
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Click
...presentation, or unless there was positive error in the instructions given, or it appeared that he had received injury from them. Ford v. McBryde, 45 Tex. 498. This is not a case of a failure to give all the law applicable to the facts, but in giving a charge upon a question about which the......