Harseim v. Cohen

• Decision Date: 08 March 1894
• Citation: Harseim v. Cohen, 25 S.W. 977 (Tex. App. 1894)
• Parties: HARSEIM v. COHEN.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

25 S.W. 977

HARSEIM v. COHEN.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1894.

Appeal from Leon county court; H. B. Pruitt, Judge.

Action by R. G. Harseim against R. Cohen for goods sold and delivered. Defendant obtained judgment. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Robt. G. Street, W. M. Johnston, J. J. Dotson, and Wm. Watson, for appellant.

WILLIAMS, J.

A mercantile business was conducted in the town of Buffalo in the name of R. Cohen. Appellant's salesman, soliciting trade, visited the establishment, and found in charge a man whom he supposed to be R. Cohen, in whose name it was carried on, but who, it seems, was S. S. Cohen. The salesman received from S. S. Cohen an order for goods to be sent to R. Cohen to be used in the business, which order was forwarded to appellant at his place of business, in Indianapolis. Appellant, upon receipt of the order, wrote a letter addressed to R. Cohen, at Buffalo, in which he declined to sell the goods ordered through his salesman on credit, but offered to sell at a reduced price for cash. In reply he received a letter and an order, signed "R. Cohen," for the goods for the price of which this suit is brought, to be shipped on the terms indicated. The goods were shipped, and, not being paid for, this suit was instituted in a justice's court to recover the amount of the account. The R. Cohen in whose name the business was carried on at Buffalo was the daughter of S. S. Cohen, under 21 years of age; but the business belonged to S. S. Cohen, and was managed by him. When sued, she filed her plea setting up her minority. The plaintiff, both in the county court and in the justice's court, sought to make S. S. Cohen a defendant, alleging a fraudulent conspiracy between him and his daughter to enable him to obtain the goods in her name, and at the same time protect her from liability, through her infancy, but was not permitted to do so. The court also struck out the pleas of the plaintiff by which it was charged that defendant had obtained the goods by such fraud, and seeking to hold her responsible for their value. The ground of this ruling in the county court seems to have been that the pleas were contained in what was styled a "supplemental petition," while the facts stated were such as should have been pleaded by an amendment. In the county court, the rules of pleading, in causes brought by appeal from justice's courts, are the same as obtain in the justice's court. No formality of statement or order of pleading, with a few exceptions, is required. The pleadings need not even be in writing. The rule on the subject of amendments and supplemental petitions had no...