Thompson v. Harmon
Decision Date | 27 December 1912 |
Citation | 152 S.W. 1161 |
Parties | THOMPSON et al. v. HARMON. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; W. T. Simmons, Judge.
Action by M. H. Harmon against W. R. Thompson and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reformed and affirmed.
Sidney L. Samuels, Geo. Thompson, and Theodore Mack, all of Ft. Worth, for appellants. W. P. McLean and R. L. Carlock, both of Ft. Worth, for appellee.
On December 23, 1905, W. R. Thompson, W. A. Green, and J. Z. Carter entered into a written contract to organize and operate a bank at Newark, Tex., as a private partnership; all of the partners being equal, and Green to be cashier and have immediate charge and be the active manager of the bank. These parties began business at Newark on March 1, 1906, in the name of the Citizens' Bank of Newark, Unincorporated, with W. R. Thompson president, J. Z. Carter vice president, and W. A. Green cashier. W. R. Thompson prior to the organization of the bank visited Newark and talked to a number of citizens, informing them of the contemplated organization of the bank and of his connection therewith, and desiring them to give to the bank their business. The following circular letter, known to each partner, was mailed out broadcast throughout the community of Newark: These letters were received by numerous members of the community, and gave general publicity to the bank and its partners in that community. W. R. Thompson was the strong financial member of the firm. He at that time was interested in two or three other banks, and had been for several years. He was a physician in Ft. Worth, where he had practiced for many years and enjoyed a lucrative practice. He admitted on the trial that he was worth at the time the bank was organized between $50,000 and $75,000. J. Z. Carter was cashier of a private bank in Paradise, 12 or 15 miles from Newark, and was worth from $5,000 to $6,000. Green, it appears, was a man of small means. W. R. Thompson's reputation for solvency and financial responsibility was well known in the Newark community; several of the patrons of the bank understanding, it appears, that his wealth amounted to above $100,000. The stationery used by the bank from its beginning was the same as that used in the circular letter. The notices sent out with regard to collection of notes, and other stationery used by the bank, all carried the superscription: W. A. Green was in active charge of the bank and was invested with its whole control and management, so far as the community at large had dealings with the bank. A lot was purchased in Newark and a deed made thereto to the partnership, and a substantial building was erected on the lot. As a matter of fact, it appears only a thousand dollars apiece had been put into the bank by each of the partners.
In October, 1907, during the severe financial panic at that time prevailing generally, it appears that an arrangement was made between W. R. Thompson and J. Z. Carter and W. A. Green whereby Thompson and Carter sold out their interest in the banking business to W. A. Green. The appellee contended that this sale was simply a collusive or pretended sale of the partnership, and was not one made in good faith. The appellants claim that the sale was a bona fide sale. In view of the verdict of the jury there is involved a finding on this question in favor of the appellants, and it becomes unnecessary for the purposes of this appeal to set out the testimony on this phase of the case. The bank continued to do business from the date of the alleged sale by the two partners until January 13, 1911, when it finally suspended business, in the same name and in the same bank building and with W. A. Green as cashier in active charge and management of the same. The same stationery was used without change during the entire period, carrying the names of W. R. Thompson, president, J. Z. Carter, vice president, and W. A. Green, cashier, at the top of each letter head and business notice. It was used freely and at all times in carrying on business of the bank. No notice of any kind was given by either Thompson, or Carter, or Green, of the asserted dissolution of the partnership, to any customer or depositor of the bank, or to any member of the business community in Newark. Newark is a town of 200 or 300 people, and had some 5 or 6 stores, and was about 18 miles distant from Ft. Worth. After the alleged dissolution Carter was in Newark a number of times. It does appear that W. R. Thompson was not in Newark after the dissolution. The only change ever made about the bank was by adding a glass sign in front reading: W. R. Thompson admitted that he did not give any notice to the people at Newark that he and Carter had sold out their interest. His testimony was: It was shown that the general opinion prevailed in the community of Newark that W. R. Thompson was a member of the bank, as was also Carter, up to the date of its suspension. At the time the bank closed its doors in January, 1911, it owed 149 depositors an aggregate of $20,008.47. These depositors assigned their claims to appellee, Harmon, himself a depositor.
Acting for the bank in the ordinary course of its business, W. A. Green assumed in September, 1908, the Oatis vendor's lien note sued on.
The evidence sustains the finding of the jury, as involved in their verdict, that W. R. Thompson and J. Z. Carter failed to give any notice, to those who had previously dealt with the bank partnership, of the alleged dissolution; that they did not give any publicity of their withdrawal to the public; and that W. A. Green continued to run the business under the name of the Citizens' Bank of Newark, and held out to the public that Thompson and Carter were still partners in the business; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ogden Packing & Provision Co. v. Wyatt
... ... 238, 81 Am ... St. Rep. 651; Western Inv. Co. v. Davis , 7 ... Indian Terr. 152, 104 S.W. 573, 15 Ann. Cas. 1134; 1 ... Thompson, Corps. 224, 225; Mitchell v ... Jensen , 29 Utah 346, 81 P. 165; Bank of ... Midland v. Harris , 114 Ark. 344, 170 S.W. 67, ... Ann. Cas ... Corps ... § 361, p. 767; Overlock v. Hazzard , 12 ... Ariz. 142, 100 P. 447; 1 Cook, Corps. (7th Ed.) § 243; ... Thompson v. Harmon (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 ... S.W. 1161; Sibley v. Parsons , 93 Mich. 538, ... 53 N.W. 786; Grocer Co. v. Mercantile Co. , ... 176 Ill.App. 507; ... ...
-
Murchison v. Caruth Bldg. Service
...liens was also notice to the wife. Ellis v. City of San Antonio, Tex.Civ.App., 341 S.W.2d 508, err. ref. n. r. e.; Thompson v. Harmon, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W. 1161, 1165, reformed and affirmed Tex.Com.App., 207 S.W. 909; 23 Tex.Jur. 151, Sec. In making the foregoing ruling we are not unmindf......
-
Federal Petroleum Co. v. Cator
...given. Devine v. Martin, 15 Tex. 25; Tudor v. White, 27 Tex. 589; Miller v. Laughlin (Tex. Civ. App.) 147 S. W. 711; Thompson v. Harmon (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 1161; 20 R. C. L. 849, § 54; Id. 964, § 191; Rodgers-Wade Fur. Co. v. Wynn (Tex. Civ. App.) 156 S. W. 340; Hamner v. Barker (Tex......
-
Thompson v. Harmon
...Court of Civil Appeals of Sixth Supreme Judicial District. Action by M. H. Harmon against W. R. Thompson and others. To review judgment (152 S. W. 1161) of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming judgment against all defendants, they bring error. Reformed and affirmed, in accordance with the r......