Middlebrook v. Zapp

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtHenry
Citation10 S.W. 732
PartiesMIDDLEBROOK <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> ZAPP <I>et al.</I>
Decision Date12 February 1889
10 S.W. 732
MIDDLEBROOK et al.
v.
ZAPP et al.
Supreme Court of Texas.
February 12, 1889.

Page 733

Appeal from district court, Fayette county.

Phelps & Lane, for appellants. Scott & Levi and W. H. Ledbetter, for appellees.

HENRY, J.


The record in this case discloses that, in the year 1885, I. Middlebrook, R. O. Middlebrook, and Mrs. Julia Meyer, then and now the wife of W. C. Meyer, entered into a written agreement of partnership to buy and sell merchandise in the town of Ellinger, in this state, under the firm name of Middlebrook Bros. Mrs. Meyer contributed one-half of the capital originally invested by the firm, and was to have one-half of the profits. The Middlebrooks were to have the other half. The business was conducted by C. W. Meyer, the husband of Julia Meyer, as an employed clerk or manager, at a monthly salary of $50; and, as retail mercantile establishments usually are, for something over two years, without profit. In the mean time the original stock had been sold and replenished from time to time, the purchases being made for cash, and on time. In August, 1887, Leon & H. Blum caused the sheriff of Fayette county to levy an execution in their favor, and against C. W. Meyer, on a portion of said stock of merchandise valued at about $1,000. The sheriff took actual possession of the goods levied upon, sold them, and paid the proceeds to Leon & H. Blum. This suit was brought by the two Middlebrooks and Mrs. Julia Meyer, joined by C. W. Meyer, the husband, as nominal plaintiff, for damages on account of said levy and sale. After exceptions had been filed by defendants for misjoinder of parties, plaintiffs amended, alleging that I. W. Middlebrook, R. O. Middlebrook, and Mrs. Julia Meyer were partners in business in the town of Ellinger; that C. W. Meyer was in charge of the business as clerk and agent of plaintiffs; that he had no interest in the stock of merchandise; and that the money put into the enterprise by Mrs. Meyer was her separate property. Under the authority of former decisions of this court, it must be held that, notwithstanding the fact that the capital paid into the firm by Mrs. Meyer was her separate property, the stock of goods at the time of the levy belonged to the Middlebrooks and the community estate of herself and husband. Epperson v. Jones, 65 Tex. 425; Smith v. Bailey, 66 Tex. 553, 1 S. W. Rep. 627.

The interest in the partnership held in the name of Mrs. Meyer, being community property, was under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • Walker-Smith Co. v. Coker, No. 2389.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 3 Diciembre 1943
    ...separate property, and how much were profits, or community estate of herself and husband." Also see Middlebrook Bros. v. Zapp, 73 Tex. 29, 10 S.W. 732. The wife's separate property may undergo changes and yet retain its separate character; but, where her separate property has undergone muta......
  • Sivalls Motor Co. v. Chastain, (No. 422.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 30 Marzo 1928
    ...San Antonio Traction Co. v. Yost, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 551, 88 S. W. 428; Denison v. League, 16 Tex. 408; Middlebrook v. Zapp, 73 Tex. 29, 10 S. W. 732; Cooper v. Loughlin, 75 Tex. 524, 13 S. W. 37; Sorenson v. City Nat. Bank (Tex Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 638; Ridgell v. Farmers' Nat. Bank (Tex. C......
  • Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Few, No. 484
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • 11 Junio 1970
    ...Few and wife, Mary Frances Few, jointly. Urban v. Field, supra; Houston Gas & Fuel Co. v. Spradlin, supra; Middlebrook v. Zap, 73 Tex. 29, 10 S.W. 732; Milliken v. Smoot, 64 Tex. 171; Speer's Marital Rights in Texas, Vol. 2, sec. 689, p. 489, The reasons above set forth are sufficient to re......
  • Sanders v. Lowrimore, No. 1286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 8 Junio 1934
    ...been said she was neither a necessary nor a proper party. Texas C. Ry. Co. v. Burnett, 61 Tex. 638; Middlebrook Bros. v. Zapp, 73 Tex. 29, 10 S. W. 732; Edrington v. Newland, 57 Tex. 627; Lilly v. Yeary (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 823; Lee v. Turner, 71 Tex. 264, 9 S. W. 149; Johnson v. Erad......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • Walker-Smith Co. v. Coker, No. 2389.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 3 Diciembre 1943
    ...separate property, and how much were profits, or community estate of herself and husband." Also see Middlebrook Bros. v. Zapp, 73 Tex. 29, 10 S.W. 732. The wife's separate property may undergo changes and yet retain its separate character; but, where her separate property has undergone muta......
  • Sivalls Motor Co. v. Chastain, (No. 422.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 30 Marzo 1928
    ...San Antonio Traction Co. v. Yost, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 551, 88 S. W. 428; Denison v. League, 16 Tex. 408; Middlebrook v. Zapp, 73 Tex. 29, 10 S. W. 732; Cooper v. Loughlin, 75 Tex. 524, 13 S. W. 37; Sorenson v. City Nat. Bank (Tex Civ. App.) 273 S. W. 638; Ridgell v. Farmers' Nat. Bank (Tex. C......
  • Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Few, No. 484
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • 11 Junio 1970
    ...Few and wife, Mary Frances Few, jointly. Urban v. Field, supra; Houston Gas & Fuel Co. v. Spradlin, supra; Middlebrook v. Zap, 73 Tex. 29, 10 S.W. 732; Milliken v. Smoot, 64 Tex. 171; Speer's Marital Rights in Texas, Vol. 2, sec. 689, p. 489, The reasons above set forth are sufficient to re......
  • Sanders v. Lowrimore, No. 1286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 8 Junio 1934
    ...been said she was neither a necessary nor a proper party. Texas C. Ry. Co. v. Burnett, 61 Tex. 638; Middlebrook Bros. v. Zapp, 73 Tex. 29, 10 S. W. 732; Edrington v. Newland, 57 Tex. 627; Lilly v. Yeary (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 823; Lee v. Turner, 71 Tex. 264, 9 S. W. 149; Johnson v. Erad......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT