Lloyd v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 18 October 1913 |
| Citation | 160 S.W. 128 |
| Parties | LLOYD v. ROBINSON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Tarrant County Court; Charles T. Prewett, Judge.
Action by W. M. Robinson against Coke Lloyd. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
A. J. Clendenen, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. Baskin, Dodge & Eastus, of Ft. Worth, for appellee.
In the month of August, 1911, appellant, Lloyd, shipped cattle from his home in Wise county to Ft. Worth in Tarrant county. After the sale of the cattle he proceeded to appellee's saloon, where he claims he became intoxicated, and the testimony is undisputed that he was so drunk he had very little recollection of the amount of money which he expended in the saloon and which he lost in a game of poker in a room over the saloon. This suit was instituted in the justice court of precinct No. 1 of Tarrant county, by appellee, to recover of appellant the sum of $165, being the aggregate amount of three checks drawn by appellant on the First National Bank of Decatur, Tex., and delivered to appellee. Appellant testifies, and it is not denied, that the money obtained on these three checks, in addition to $60, which appellant had when he first went to appellee's saloon and gambling den, was all lost in the Saturday night game of poker, except $10, which appellee let him have on a check, and which appellant paid to a doctor who attended him while he was recovering from the effects of the liquor and "dope" which appellant claims was administered to him in appellee's saloon, and which is not denied. It is not denied that at the time the checks were given appellant fully intended that they should be paid by the drawee bank in Decatur, and it seems his condition as to sobriety was such at the time that he was incapable of committing a fraud, if such had been his original intention. Appellant alleged his residence to be in precinct No. 6, Wise county, Tex., and negatived all the exceptions which under the venue statute would have given the justice court of Tarrant county jurisdiction of his person. His plea was sustained by uncontroverted testimony. Appellee alleged as follows: "That defendant, after delivering said checks, has stopped payment of them, and is denying liability thereon, and thereby attempting to defraud plaintiff, to his damage in the sum of $165; that after executing and delivering said checks, the defendant, while in Ft. Worth, Tarrant county, by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Collateral, Inc. v. Cauble, 17162
...which plaintiff participated, could not be collected through the courts when said facts were established as a defense. In Lloyd v. Robinson, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W. 128, it was held that checks given for money to be used in gambling could not be collected and the drawer could stop payment on......
-
Springer v. Sahara Casinos Co.
...which plaintiff participated, could not be collected through the courts when said facts were established as a defense. In Lloyd v. Robinson, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W. 128, it was held that checks given for money to be used in gambling could not be collected and the drawer could stop payment on......
-
Wright v. Shipman
...in favor of a plaintiff can be legally pronounced, and, if a judgment be entered on such a petition, it is void. Lloyd v. Robinson (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 128; Seeligson v. Lewis & Williams, 65 Tex. 215-223, 57 Am. Rep. 593; Burney v. Blanks (Tex. Civ. App.) 136 S. W. Does the petition f......