Haas v. American Nat. Bank

• Citation: 94 S.W. 439
• Parties: HAAS et al. v. AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF AUSTIN et al.
• Decision Date: 28 February 1906
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas

94 S.W. 439

HAAS et al. v. AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF AUSTIN et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 28, 1906.

Appeal from Travis County Court; John W. Hornsby, Judge.

Action by the American National Bank of Austin against Charles Haas and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants Haas appeal. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

D. W. Doom, D. H. Doom, and L. A. Hill, for appellants. Wm. Brueggerhoff, for appellee bank.

FISHER, C. J.

This suit is by the American National Bank against D. A. Griffitts, Charles Haas, and Mrs. M. A. Haas, on a note executed by D. A. Griffitts to the bank for the sum of $100, which was secured by two notes deposited by Griffitts as collateral, each for the sum of $75, executed January 5, 1901, by Mrs M. A. Haas, payable to Griffitts. Charles Haas and his wife, M. A. Haas, were joined for the purpose of foreclosing the lien of the bank on the notes executed by Mrs. Haas to Griffitts and held by the bank as collateral security. The main controversy in the case is as to the liability of Charles Haas and his wife, Mrs. M. A. Haas. They pleaded that they were not liable on the notes executed to Griffitts, for the reason that Mrs. Haas had no authority to execute the same. Plaintiffs replied that the two notes were executed in consideration of four scholarship certificates, issued by D. A. Griffitts, who was conducting a commercial school, two in favor of Lena Haas, the daughter of Charles Haas and Mrs. M. A. Haas, and two in favor of Wm. F. Ott, who was a member of the family of Charles Haas and wife, who stood in loco parentis to said Ott, both of the children at the time being minors; and that the scholarships entitled both to pursue a course in the business college then conducted and carried on by Griffitts; that the scholarships and education in this capacity of Lena Haas and William Ott were necessaries. Plaintiffs also pleaded that the bank was the holder for value of the notes, without any notice of any vice or defect in them, or want of authority upon the part of Mrs. Haas to execute the same. The trial court, in submitting the case to the jury, left to their determination whether Wm. Ott was a member of the family of Haas and wife, and whether the education of Lena Haas and Ott could be regarded as a necessary, within the meaning of article 2970, Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897, and whether the debt and the notes contracted for that purpose were reasonable and proper, as required by article 2971, Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897. As to these questions, the verdict of the jury was in favor of the plaintiff, to the effect that the plaintiff recover of Griffitts the amount of the notes executed by him, and also against Haas and wife the sum of $150, the amount of the notes executed by them.

The contention of the bank that it should be accorded the protection afforded to an innocent purchaser of negotiable paper must be laid aside. It must take notice of the coverture of Mrs. Haas, and the existence or the want of existence of the circumstances and facts that would authorize her to execute a contract such as is authorized by article 2970, Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897. Daniel v. Mason, 90 Tex. 240, 38 S. W. 161, 59 Am. St. Rep. 815. So much of the verdict and judgment against Haas and wife as is based upon the notes that represent the scholarship of Ott cannot be maintained by the evidence. It is true that Haas, during the time that young Ott was brought into the family, was absent, and intended to be absent for some time; and there is evidence tending to show that during his absence his wife, Mrs. Haas, usually and ordinarily did as she pleased, and performed such duties with reference to the management of the marital affairs and property, and looking to the care and custody of the child Lena, and in providing for the domestic necessities and wants of the family, as might be proper and necessary. But all this would not justify her, without the consent of her husband, in adopting a child, or permit her to bring one into the family that would be a charge upon the separate estate of the husband or the community estate of both. The evidence shows that what property they possessed is community. It is unnecessary for us to discuss the facts that lead us to the conclusion that Ott was not such a constituent of the family that would justify Mrs. Haas, under the circumstances, in entering into the contract to provide him with the tuition represented by the scholarship certificates.

It is seriously contended by...