Gouldy v. Metcalf
| Decision Date | 17 December 1889 |
| Citation | 12 S.W. 830 |
| Parties | GOULDY <I>v.</I> METCALF <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
J. Jenkins, for appellant. W. M. Knight and Cram & Ramsey, for appellees.
W. H. Turner, by properly executed power of attorney, granted to H. E. Turner and A. P. Bell authority and powers as follows: "In and about my business, to buy, sell, or exchange property, to receive and receipt for money, to sell and dispose of property, to give bills of sale thereto, or to sell and transfer real estate and execute deeds thereto, or to do and perform any lawful act in or about or concerning my business, as fully and completely as if I were personally present, and I herein and hereby confirm all their lawful acts and deeds that they perform in any manner connected with my business." Under this instrument the attorneys in fact executed a statutory deed of assignment of Turner's property for the benefit of his creditors. Appellant, Gouldy, was named as assignee, and he took possession of the assigned estate as such. Appellees Reeder and Pool were creditors of Turner, and sued out an attachment against him, under which appellee Metcalf, as sheriff, took from the possession of Gouldy the stock of merchandise, books, and accounts, etc., which he had received as assignee of Turner. Gouldy brought this suit as assignee against the sheriff and plaintiffs, in attachment to recover damages for the wrongful seizure and conversion of the property. On the trial, plaintiff, having introduced in evidence the power of attorney, offered the deed of assignment, which was objected to by defendants upon the ground that "the power of attorney did not authorize the attorneys in fact to make the deed." The objection was sustained, and there was no other evidence offered. The court, trying the case without a jury, rendered judgment for defendants. The only question presented is, did the trial court err in holding that the power of attorney did not authorize the attorneys in fact to execute the deed of assignment? That a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors may be executed by an agent or attorney in fact, especially authorized thereto, we think has been settled by the decision in McKee v. Coffin, 66 Tex. 307, 308, 1 S. W. Rep. 276, where it is said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Bankerd
...in which they are used, and are construed accordingly. See Aiello v. Clark, supra, 680 P.2d at 1166 (quoting Gouldy v. Metcalf, 75 Tex. 455, 458, 12 S.W. 830, 831 (1889)). In accordance with these principles, nearly every jurisdiction that has considered the issue in the case sub judice has......
-
Bourland v. Huffhines
...App.) 208 S. W. 689; Reese v. Medlock, 27 Tex. 120, 84 Am. Dec. 611; Fowler v. Cobb (Mo. App.) 232 S. W. 1084; Gouldy v. Metcalf, 75 Tex. 455, 12 S. W. 830, 16 Am. St. Rep. 912; Skaggs v. Murchison, 63 Tex. 348; Mann v. Dublin Cotton Oil Co., 92 Tex. 377, 48 S. W. 567; Fidelity Trust Co. v.......
-
Shelton v. Exxon Corp.
...that in Texas attorneys in fact may have certain powers associated with the settlement of disputes. See, e.g., Gouldy v. Metcalf, 75 Tex. 455, 12 S.W. 830, 831 (1889) (assignment for the benefit of creditors may be made by an authorized attorney in fact). See also 17 Tex.Jur.3d Creditor's R......
-
First Nat. Bank in Dallas v. Kinabrew
...to convey does not include the power to convey in the settlement of debts, unless specifically so authorized, citing Gouldy v. Metcalf, 75 Tex. 455, 12 S.W. 830, 831 (1889), and Frost v. Erath Cattle Co., 81 Tex. 505, 17 S.W. 52, 54 (1891). Manifestly, however, such rule applies only to spe......