South Texas Nat. Bank v. Lagrange Oil-Mill Co.
Decision Date | 24 March 1897 |
Parties | SOUTH TEXAS NAT. BANK v. LAGRANGE OIL-MILL CO. et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Harris county; A. C. Allen, Special Judge.
Action by the South Texas National Bank against the Lagrange Oil-Mill Company and White & Bradshaw. From a judgment for plaintiff against the last-named defendant, and against defendant company on its plea in reconvention, plaintiff appeals, and said company assigns cross errors. Reformed.
O. T. Holt, for appellant. Brown & Lane, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by the appellant to recover a debt alleged to be due from appellees to appellant upon the following instrument in writing, to wit:
That on the back of said note is written, "Lagrange Oil-Mill Co. A. T. Bradshaw, V. Prest."
The petition alleged that the defendant the Lagrange Oil-Mill Company was a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Texas, and that its place of business was in the city of Lagrange, county of Fayette, and state of Texas, and that its secretary was R. T. Bradshaw, and that its vice president was A. T. Bradshaw. The petition charged that by virtue of the execution of the foregoing instrument the defendants were each, jointly and severally, liable for the sums sued for; and it further averred that the defendants had disposed of their property with the intent to defraud their creditors. It prayed that an attachment be levied on a sufficient amount of defendant's property to satisfy the plaintiff's debt and costs, and for foreclosure of the lien on all of the property levied on by the writ of attachment. The attachment was issued and levied on the real property of the defendant the Lagrange Oil-Mill Company, and on much of its personal property; and the latter, pending the litigation, was sold, under order of the court, for cash, and the proceeds of the sale were held to abide the result of the suit. The defendants White & Bradshaw made default, but the Lagrange Oil-Mill Company appeared and answered by general demurrer and general denial, and specially denied that it executed the instrument sued on, and alleged that it was a private corporation, and had no authority or power to indorse said instrument; that the purposes for which said company was incorporated were to gin and bale cotton, and to manufacture cotton-seed oil, oil cake, and other articles usually incident to the operation of cotton seed oil mills, and for these purposes, and none others, was it incorporated; that at the date of the execution of the instrument sued on (and for a long time prior thereto) the said White & Bradshaw were partners doing business in the city of Lagrange under the firm name of White & Bradshaw, and that at said date the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texarkana & fort Smith Railway Co. v. Bemis Lumber Co.
...4 id., §§ 4816, 4824, 4826, 5738, 4958, 4933, 5707; 16 N.H. 26; 2 Morawetz, Corp., § 679, 588; 87 N.Y. 628; 36 N.J. 548; 26 N.Y. 505; 40 S.W. 328; 167 U.S. 362. The established course dealing was sufficient to authorize the president of the appellant company to bind it by note. 62 Ark. 7; 5......
-
W. A. Morgan & Bros. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
...88 Tex. 562, 30 S. W. 1055, 53 Am. St. Rep. 778; Tram Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. Civ App. 171, 40 S. W. 837; Bank v. Lagrange Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 40 S. W. 328; Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman Car Co., 139 U. S. 38, 11 Sup. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55; Railway Co. v. Hotel Co., 102 Md. 30......
-
Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Bemis Lumber Co.
...433, 41 L. Ed. 817; Railway Co. v. Worthington (Tex. Sup.) 30 S. W. 1057; Id., 88 Tex. 570, 30 S. W. 1055; South Texas Nat. Bank v. Lagrange Oil-Mill Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 40 S. W. 328. There is a marked distinction between such contracts and those which are merely in excess of power express......
-
McCaleb v. Boerne Electric Power & Mfg. Co.
...Worthington, 88 Tex. 562, 30 S. W. 1055, 53 Am. St. Rep. 778; Gaston v. Campbell, 104 Tex. 576, 140 S. W. 770, 141 S. W. 515; Bank v. Oil Mill Co., 40 S. W. 328; Deaton v. Harvester Co., 47 Tex. Civ. App. 267, 105 S. W. 556; Deposit Co. v. Bank, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 301, 106 S. W. 784; Carla L......