Grimes v. Hagood
| Decision Date | 01 January 1864 |
| Parties | G. R. GRIMES AND ANOTHER v. WILLIAM A. HAGOOD. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
When money is advanced on cotton received in store, the cotton is the primary fund for the discharge of the sum so advanced.
A party, having advanced money under such circumstances, can only bring a personal action therefor against him to whom the advance is made, when he can no longer look to the cotton as the means out of which he can reimburse himself.
Where a warehouse keeper had advanced money on cotton stored with him, and the cotton was destroyed by fire: held, that the statute of limitation commenced running against his right of action for the money so advanced from the time at which the cotton was so destroyed.
In this case, the receipt for the money so advanced was signed by a third party, who was proved to have been acting for and under the instructions of the parties to whom the money was advanced: held, that it is a well established principle, that in transactions of this kind, if credit be given to the principal, he is bound by the act of his agent, although the contract does not, on its face, purport to be made in his name, or on his account.
APPEAL from Cherokee. Tried below before the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves.
This suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace by the appellee, William A. Hagood, against the appellants, George R. and Marshall Grimes. The justice of the peace rendered a judgment against Hagood, who removed the case, by certiorari, to the district court of Cherokee county.
The action was based upon the following paper, to wit:
“$97 50-100. Received, Magnolia, December 14, 1854, from W. A. Hagood, ninety-seven dollars 50-100, to be handed to G. R. Grimes & Bro.
JOHN F. PATTON.”
It was in proof that Patton was acting as the agent of G. R. Marshall & Bro. The proceeding before the justice of the peace was commenced on the 10th day of February, 1857. The cotton was burned on the 20th March, 1855. The defendants below pleaded the statute of limitations. The other facts are the same as in the suit between the same parties reported in 19 Tex., 246. There was a verdict and judgment for Hagood. G. R. Marshall & Bro. made a motion for new trial, which being overruled, they appealed.
Donley & Anderson, for appellants.
A. J. Hood, for appellee.
The only questions of any importance in this case are believed to be settled by the principles announced by this court in a previous suit between these same parties. (19 Tex., 246.) The court then said: “When money is advanced on cotton received in store, the cotton is the primary fund for the discharge of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guthrie v. National Homes Corporation
...admitted to prove that Guthrie ratified Crow's execution of the note. Texas Land & Cattle Co. v. Carroll & Iler, supra; Grimes v. Hagood, 27 Tex. 693 (1864). National Homes Corporation, the payee, obtained a jury finding that Guthrie ratified the note and ratification is ordinarily a jury i......
-
Glasscock v. Rosengrant
...is not barred. The statute was not set in motion until appellant notified appellee to cease taking the timber. See Wood on Lim., 337; 27 Tex. 693; 9 N.Y. OPINION MANSFIELD, J. 1. This action was brought to recover back the sum of $ 1708.27, which the complaint alleges was paid to the defend......