Kronkosky v. Kuhn
| Decision Date | 05 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7116.) |
| Parties | KRONKOSKY v. KUHN et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Bexar County Court for Civil Cases; McCollum Burnett, Judge.
Action by Albert Kronkosky against Richard W. Kuhn and H. E. Gebhart. Judgment for plaintiff against the second named defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
John K. Weber, of San Antonio, for appellant.
Hertzberg, Kercheville & Thomson, of San Antonio, for appellees.
Appellant sued Richard W. Kuhn and H. E. Gebhart, alleging that they were doing business together under the name of the Gebhart Specialty Company; that they made, executed, and delivered to the National Bank of Commerce of San Antonio, their certain promissory note for $440, they signing as principals and appellant as surety; that the note was given in furtherance of the partnership business; that appellant signed the note upon the promise of appellees that they would hold him harmless from all liability on the same; that the note was not paid, and appellant was compelled to pay the same to the bank which indorsed it, without recourse, to appellant. Richard W. Kuhn answered that the firm was composed of himself and H. E. Gebhart, a nephew of appellant, who persuaded Kuhn to enter business with the nephew, on the promise that appellant would furnish capital to the extent of $500, and that he would hold Kuhn harmless. Kuhn alleged that he turned the whole business over to Gebhart, and he assumed all liabilities of the firm. The cause was tried with a jury, and, on the answer to one special issue submitted to them, judgment was rendered that appellant recover nothing of Kuhn and recover of Gebhart $482.56.
The issue submitted to the jury was, "Did the plaintiff, Kronkosky, agree to finance the business known as the Gebhart Specialty Company and to hold the defendant Kuhn harmless from the payment of the note in controversy?" And the jury answered, "Yes."
There is but one assignment copied into the brief, and is as follows:
"The verdict of the jury and judgment of the court are erroneous and contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence in this, that the jury in response to the special issue submitted answered that Albert Kronkosky agreed to finance the business known as the Gebhart Specialty Company and to hold the defendant Richard W. Kuhn harmless from the payment of the note in controversy; that there is no evidence claiming or tending to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 2595.
...Antonio U. & G. R. Co. v. Storey, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W. 188; Quannah A. & P. R. Co. v. Bone, Tex.Civ.App., 208 S.W. 709; Kronkosky v. Kuhn, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 1009. See also Rule 374, T.R.C.P., which provides: "A ground of error not distinctly set forth in the motion for new trial, in ......
-
Kolacny v. Pelech
...face of the record, whether assigned or not, had been repealed. Rules 322, 324, and 374, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Kronkosky v. Kuhn, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 1009; Quanah. A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Bone, Tex.Civ.App., 208 S.W. 709; Harlingen Land & Water Co., v. Houston Motor Co., Tex.Civ.App......
-
Postell v. Smith
...by this court for any purpose. Rule 322, T.R.C.P.; Jennings v. Shepherd Laundries Co., Tex. Civ.App., 284 S.W. 693; Kronkosky v. Kuhn, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 1009; San Antonio, U. & G. R. Co. v. Storey, Tex. Civ.App., 172 S.W. 188, point 8; Harlingen Land & Water Co. v. Houston Motor Co., T......
-
Swanson v. Holt
...or of the appellate court." 3 Tex.Jur. § 171, p. 265; Texas Midland R. R. v. Johnson, 20 Tex.Civ.App. 572, 50 S.W. 1044; Kronkosky v. Kuhn (Tex.Civ.App.) 259 S.W. 1009. At the outset we are met with the motion made by defendant in error to strike the assignments of error brought forward by ......