Jones v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 01 November 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 832
• Parties: JONES <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> HUNT.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

12 S.W. 832

JONES et al.

v. HUNT.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 1, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Cass county; JOHN L. SHEPPARD, Judge.

O'Neal & Eberhardt, for appellants. O'Neal & Sons, for appellee.

HENRY, J.

This suit was brought by appellants to recover from appellee damages for wrongful conversion by defendant of a sum of money belonging to plaintiffs. It appears that a package of money containing $1,761.29, belonging to plaintiffs, was received by an express company, to be transported and delivered to an agent of plaintiffs' at Queen City. The agent, intending to be away on the day that the money was expected to arrive at its destination, and having been informed by the agent of the express company that, having no facilities for keeping it safely, it could not hold the money until his return, he requested defendant to receive the money from the express company for the purpose of safely keeping it for plaintiffs until the return of the agent. Defendant consented, and, on the arrival of the money, received it from the express company, on a written order given him by plaintiffs' agent. The absence of the agent was only temporary, as it was expected to be, and on his return he demanded of the defendant the delivery of the package of money, which was refused by defendant, except on condition of the payment by plaintiffs of certain moneyed demands claimed by defendant to be due him by them. The cause was tried with a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $381.30, to reverse which they prosecute this appeal. The defendant pleaded in reconversion that plaintiffs were indebted to him for goods, wares, and merchandise sold to Rice & Bros., at the instance and request of plaintiffs, a bill of particulars of which was made part of his answers; that he had paid an indebtedness of Rice & Bros. to another party, amounting to $100, at the request of plaintiffs; that he was the owner, by transfer, of one promissory note executed by plaintiffs to Rice & Bros., and of an interest in another; and that he was the owner of a draft drawn by himself, payable to his own order, addressed to plaintiffs, and accepted by them; all of which were made exhibits to the answer. Plaintiffs replied to these allegations that, if they ever made the promises charged, or executed said acceptance or promissory notes, they did so conditioned upon defendant's promise and undertaking to procure from said Rice & Bros. a deed of trust upon their property, to secure the payment...