Pennington v. Bevering
Decision Date | 05 June 1929 |
Docket Number | (No. 1082-5306.) |
Citation | 17 S.W.2d 772 |
Parties | PENNINGTON v. BEVERING et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by Harry Pennington against A. H. Bevering and another. A judgment for defendants was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals , and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Fitzgerald, Hatchitt & Pittman, of Wichita Falls, for plaintiff in error.
Allred & Allred, of Wichita Falls, for defendants in error.
A. H. Bevering and M. L. Hooker recovered a judgment against J. Fred Smith, Ross Corlett, and Harry Pennington, jointly and severally, in the sum of $30,944.44, with interest. Thereafter the judgment creditors accepted from Ross Corlett $1,000 and executed an instrument of release, and still later they released J. Fred Smith from the judgment. This suit was instituted by Pennington against the judgment creditors alleging that he had been released through the transaction with Corlett and praying a cancellation of the judgment in full. The trial court denied the plaintiff any relief, and that judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 9 S.W.(2d) 401.
Plaintiff in error's right to recover is controlled by the legal effect to be given to the instrument of release executed by Bevering and Hooker to Ross Corlett, the settling debtor. That instrument is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McMillen v. Klingensmith
...Telephone Co., 13 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.Civ.App.1929, writ dis.); Pennington v. Bevering, 9 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.Civ.App.), Aff'd on other grounds, 17 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.Com.App.1929, jdgmt adopted); St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Bass, 140 S.W. 860 (Tex. Civ.App.1911, writ ref.); El Paso & S.R. Co. v. ......
-
City of Coleman v. Kenley
...to discharge the telephone company from its original liability to Cox. The following cases are to the same effect: Pennington v. Bevering, Tex.Com. App., 17 S.W.2d 772; McMullen v. Coleman, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 776, 778; Pearce v. Hallum, Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W. 2d 399, writ refused; Atch......
-
Gholson v. Savin
... ... Carlin & Fulton Co., 155 Md. 51, 141 A. 434, 58 ... A.L.R. 767; Dodson v. Continental Supply Co., 175 ... Okl. 587, 53 P.2d 582; Pennington v. Bevering, ... Tex.Com.App., 17 S.W.2d 772; North Pacific Public ... Service Co. v. Clark, 185 Wash. 132, 52 P.2d 1255; ... Johnson v ... ...
-
Hansen v. Collett
...from the facts of this case, rejects the majority rule and approves the cases adopting the minority rule, citing Pennington v. Bevering, Tex.Com.App., 17 S.W.2d 772; Black v. Martin, 88 Mont. 256, 292 P. 577, 581; and Dean Wigmore's famous and often-quoted statement that the majority rule i......