Seley v. Colbert

• Decision Date: 16 April 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 210.)
• Citation: Seley v. Colbert, 272 S.W. 818 (Tex. App. 1925)
• Parties: SELEY et al. v. COLBERT.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 818

272 S.W. 818

SELEY et al. v. COLBERT.

(No. 210.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

April 16, 1925.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, McLennan County.

Suit by C. M. Seley and others against H. L. Colbert. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Garrett & Sheehy, of Waco, for appellants.

Nat Harris, of Waco, for appellee.

BARCUS, J.

Appellants filed suit against appellee to recover on a note, dated July 7, 1920, for $750, payable in monthly installments of $50 each, beginning on August 8, 1920, the note having been executed by appellee to the Waco Motor Company, a corporation, in payment for an automobile. The note was indorsed by the Waco Motor Company to appellants, who were conducting a banking business. Appellee alleged as a defense to the note that, at the time the same was given, and at various times thereafter, he had an agreement with the Waco Motor Company to pay the note in work, painting, and repairing automobiles for the Waco Motor Company, and that the appellants, at the time they obtained the note from the Waco Motor Company, knew of said arrangement and agreement and at said time agreed with the Waco Motor Company that the note could be paid in said manner, and after receiving same, knew that appellee was performing said services for the Waco Motor Company, relying on the contract that the same would be applied to the payment of the note. It was an established fact that appellee and the Waco Motor Company did make the contract that appellee could pay the note by performing labor and services for the Waco Motor Company, and relying thereon, appellee did perform services and labor before the note matured sufficient to fully discharge and pay same, and the Waco Motor Company, as the work was done, agreed to credit the note. The president of the Waco Motor Company and appellee both testified that the note had been fully discharged and paid in said manner. As between the Waco Motor Company and appellee, there could be no question raised but that the note had been fully paid.

The jury found, in answer to special issues, that at the time appellants purchased the note from the Waco Motor Company they agreed with Mr. Lee, the president of the Waco Motor Company, that appellee should have the right to pay the note by doing work for the Waco Motor Company, and that appellants agreed that appellee should have credit on the note for such work as he did for said Waco Motor Company. The evidence supports...