Texas Land & Cattle Co. v. Molina
Decision Date | 09 January 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 7063.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 258 S.W. 216 |
Parties | TEXAS LAND & CATTLE CO. et al. v. MOLINA. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Suit by C. B. Molina against the Texas Land & Cattle Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
M. E. Sedberry and S. C. Autry, both of San Angelo, for plaintiffs in error.
H. S. Groesbeeck and A. L. Matlock, both of San Antonio, for defendant in error.
This case comes up on petition for writ of error entirely ignored, and is filed and briefed by both parties as on appeal.
This suit was brought by C. B. Molina, owner and holder of the note against Texas Land & Cattle Company, alleging it to be a concern organized under what is known as a common-law declaration of trust, and alleging that said concern was a copartnership composed of E. H. Murff, Oscar Eckert, and Richard Pluff, residents of Tom Green county, Tex., and other persons whose names and addresses are to plaintiff unknown. It is further alleged that the Texas Land & Cattle Company is a copartnership, and that the certificate holders therein are partners, and as such are liable to defendant in error.
The cause of action is founded upon a promissory note for $6,250, dated August 22, 1921, payable to the order of Elizabeth Harris Murff, one year after date, with 8 per cent. interest from date, with usual attorney's fees upon default, which note is signed, "The Texas Land & Cattle Company, by L. A. Murff, President."
There is no allegation of joint and several liability nor any allegation of the execution and delivery by the partnership of the note sued on. The prayer of the petition was simply for the recovery of a personal judgment against each of the defendants. By a supplemental petition, defendant in error alleged:
Exceptions, pleas of privilege, denials, answers, etc., and a sworn denial of partnership constituted plaintiffs in error's defenses.
The cause was tried without a jury, and the court made its findings which are embraced in the decree overruling all demurrers and pleas. The findings are not challenged, but seem satisfactorily to both parties. Defendant in error dismissed as to L. A. Murff and E. H. Murff, and all the other defendants were by the decree of the court dismissed from the suit, whereupon the court entered its judgment in favor of defendant in error against the Texas Land & Cattle Company and Oscar Eckert individually, for $7,586.06, being amount of principal, interest, and attorney's fees, and further adjudged that the amount be first recovered from the Texas Land & Cattle Company, upon the theory of a partnership liability. It is not necessary for us to pass upon the question here as to the character and legal effect of the association or its members, designated a common-law trust, to its creditors,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker Motor Co. v. Hamilton
...against one or more of the partners on their several liability except where such liability is specially pleaded. Texas Land & Cattle Co. v. Molina (Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 216. On the foregoing propositions we deduce the following conclusions of law, disposing of all issues made by this (......
-
Burton v. Roff
...State Bank of Crowell (Tex. Civ. App.) 226 S. W. 428; McManus v. Cash & Luckel, 101 Tex. 261, 108 S. W. 800; Texas L. & C. Co. et al. v. Molina (Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 216. In McManus v. Cash & Luckel, 101 Tex. 261, 108 S. W. 800, the court "Nor do we find anything in the decision in the......
-
Allright Auto Park v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co.
...2d 475; Rowse v. Woody, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W. 362; Cox v. Bond, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 479, writ dism.; Texas Land and Cattle Company v. Molina, Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W. 216, 217; Baptist Book Concern v. Carswell, Tex.Civ.App., 46 S.W. 858; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Wallis, Tex.Civ. App.,......
-
Feldman v. Seay
...Lumber Co. v. Maer (Tex. Civ. App.) 235 S. W. 990; Lawn Production Co. v. Bailey (Tex. Civ. App.) 244 S. W. 283; Texas Land & Cattle Co. v. Molina (Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 216. The petition does not purport to name all the partners, but, on the other hand, shows that there were other part......