Progressive Oil Co. v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 08 March 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5633.) |
| Citation | 184 S.W. 728 |
| Parties | PROGRESSIVE OIL CO. et al. v. CRAWFORD. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Bexar County Court for Civil Cases: John H. Clark, Judge.
Action by J. R. Crawford against the Progressive Oil Company and others. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
J. T. Fly, of San Antonio, for appellants. Hicks, Hicks, Teagarden & Dickson, of San Antonio, for appellee.
This is a suit, filed by J. R. Crawford on November 4, 1914, against the Progressive Oil Company, a corporation, Joe L. Hill, T. W. Woodruff, and R. M. Biard, upon a joint and several promissory note for $233.34, payable to the order of plaintiff, executed by said defendants, dated June 8, 1914, due September 8, 1914, bearing 8 per cent. interest, and providing for 10 per cent. attorney's fee. Defendants Hill and Woodruff answered and denied liability, alleging that there was never a delivery of said note by them or any one authorized by them to deliver the same; that they instructed Biard not to deliver the note to plaintiff unless a certain trade should be consummated, and that said trade was never made. They also contended that plaintiff, by threats of personal violence, forced Biard to deliver the note to him. Plaintiff joined issue on said allegations, and specially alleged that, even if Biard was not authorized to deliver such note, the same was delivered by him to plaintiff without any knowledge on the part of plaintiff that Biard was not authorized to deliver same, and that plaintiff received and accepted the same in settlement of an open account, then due him by the Progressive Oil Company, and agreed to forbear suing until the maturity of said note; that at the time he accepted the note he was threatening to sue said oil company, of which defendants Hill, Woodruff, and Biard were officers and owners of practically all the stock, and would have sued said company, which at that time owned assets out of which plaintiff could have collected his debt; that within three or four days after said note was delivered Biard informed Hill and Woodruff that he had delivered the same to plaintiff, and that plaintiff had accepted it in settlement of his open account against the company, and that said defendants acquiesced in the delivery thereof, and did not notify plaintiff until after the maturity of the note that it was delivered without authority; that plaintiff by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Turner
...188 S. W. 699; Shipp v. Cartwright, 182 S. W. 70; Overton v. K. of P., 163 S. W. 1053; Edwards v. Youngblood, 160 S. W. 288; Oil Co. v. Crawford, 184 S. W. 728; Hardy v. Lamb, 152 S. W. 650; rules 24, 25, and 29 for Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii and In the case of Edwards v. Youngb......
-
Riggs v. Baleman
...S. W. 288; Grain Co. v. Burks-Simmons Co., 171 S. W. 1043; Turner v. Turner, 195 S. W. 327; Railway Co. v. King, 174 S. W. 960; Oil Co. v. Crawford, 184 S. W. 728; Dees v. Thompson, 166 S. W. 56; Bradshaw v. Kearby, 168 S. W. 436; Nat., etc., v. Gomillion, 174 S. W. 330; Watson v. Patrick, ......
-
Green v. Hall
...v. K. of P., 163 S. W. 1053; Smith v. Bogle, 165 S. W. 35; Coons v. Lain, 168 S. W. 981; Watson v. Patrick, 174 S. W. 632; Oil Co. v. Crawford, 184 S. W. 728; Irrigation Co. v. Buffington, 168 S. W. 21; Ruth v. Cobe, 165 S. W. The fifth assignment is so near a true copy that we have decided......
-
Harlan v. Acme Sanitary Flooring Co.
...v. K. of P., 163 S. W. 1052; Smith v. Bogle, 165 S. W. 35; Coons v. Lain, 168 S. W. 981; Watson v. Patrick, 174 S. W. 632; Oil Co. v. Crawford, 184 S. W. 728; Irrigation Co. v. Buffington, 168 S. W. 21; Ruth v. Cobe, 165 S. W. Another reason which precludes consideration of the assignments ......