Shear Co. v. Wilson
Decision Date | 02 March 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 735-4671.) |
Citation | 292 S.W. 531 |
Parties | SHEAR CO. v. WILSON et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Williamson & McDonnell, of Waco, for plaintiffs in error.
Williams, Williams, McClellan & Lincoln, of Waco, for defendants in error.
The following statement by Justice Stanford of the Court of Civil Appeals is sufficient:
The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal of T. C. Phillips, reversed and remanded the cause as between Mrs. Nettie L. Wilson and the Shear Company, but as to all other parties the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. 284 S. W. 654.
Writs have been granted to both T. C. Phillips and the Shear Company, the latter having been granted "because of the various dissents shown in the several opinions of the Court of Civil Appeals."
We will first dispose of the case between the Shear Company and Mrs. Nettie L. Wilson. We agree with the conclusions reached by the Court of Civil Appeals through the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Gallagher and Justice Barcus. We, too, think that the controlling issues to be determined are whether the shares of stock in the Rotan Grocery Company evidenced by certificate No. 112 were the separate property of Mrs. Wilson, and whether the corporation had knowledge or notice of such fact at the time it accepted the surrender of said certificate No. 112 and issued new certificates in lieu thereof in its changed corporate name, to C. W. Wilson.
The verdict found the first of these issues in Mrs. Wilson's favor, and it is by no means clear it did not likewise find the other issue in her favor. It does find that at the time of the purchase of the stock Mrs. Wilson did request Shear as president to enter her name as holder and owner of the shares on the books of the company, and did, at the time, request Shear as president to issue said certificate in her name. Unless there is some forbidding reason, and we shall notice this question later, notice to the president of the company will be imputed to the company. But we cannot decide this matter, since the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals against Mrs. Wilson as to a rendition upon the verdict is not before us upon any application for a writ by her. The judgment in this respect, therefore, must stand.
A brief discussion of the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Drug, Inc. v. Hunt
... ... and under a superior title, whether it has notice of his ... rights, or not." ... See, ... also, Shear Co. v. Wilson (Tex. Com. App.), ... 292 S.W. 531, 534; Allmon v. Salem Bldg. Ass'n, ... 275 Ill. 336, 114 N.E. 170; First Nat. Bank v ... ...
-
Traders' & General Ins. Co. v. Emmert
...328, 13 S. W. 161; Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School Dist. (Tex. Com. App.) 290 S. W. 1083, 1085, par. 11; Shear Company v. Wilson (Tex. Com. App.) 292 S. W. 531, 535, par. 5; Moore v. Supreme Assembly, etc., 42 Tex. Civ. App. 366, 93 S. W. 1077, 1079 (writ refused); American Central I......
-
George H. Sasser & Co. v. Chuck Wagon System Inc.
...it must be shown that they were known by disinterested officers of the corporation.’ 1 Restatement Agency, § 279; Shear Co. v. Wilson et al., Tex.Com.App., 292 S.W. 531; Ohio Millers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Artesia State Bank, 5 Cir., 39 F.2d 400; Warren v. Lincoln et al., 58 S.D. 196, 235 N.W. 5......
-
Wilson v. Shear Co.
...and the two latter filed cross-actions. From the judgment rendered, Nettie L. Wilson and others appealed. The Commission of Appeals (292 S. W. 531, 294 S. W. 843) affirmed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (284 S. W. 654), in so far as it reversed the judgment of the trial court as......