Walker v. Brown

• Decision Date: 26 October 1886
• Citation: 1 S.W. 797
• Parties: WALKER and another v. BROWN and others.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

1 S.W. 797

WALKER and another v. BROWN and others.

Supreme Court of Texas.

October 26, 1886.

Appeal from Titus county.

J. H. Harper, for appellants. Pounders & Olive, for appellees.

STAYTON, J.

Appellees brought this action against E. M. and A. C. Walker, as partners, to recover the value of certain goods alleged to have been sold to them by the appellees. A. C. Walker denied the partnership by a sworn plea, and denied liability for the debt. There was evidence, both direct and circumstantial, tending to show that the partnership existed, and that the goods, as alleged, were sold to them as partners, doing business under the firm name of E. M. Walker. There was also evidence tending to show that they held themselves out as partners to the appellees at the time the goods were purchased.

The court below gave the following charge: "That if they believed from the evidence that E. M. and A. C. Walker represented themselves to be partners, and induced James Thompson, one of the firm of Brown, Thompson & Co., to sell them goods, believing them to be partners, then it would make no difference whether they were such partners or not; in fact, they would be liable as partners for the goods so purchased." This is assigned as error. This charge correctly states a general rule of law. If the appellant was of the opinion that the court should have informed the jury as to the character of representations upon which the seller might rely, he should have asked a charge upon that subject. It is urged that the charge was one upon the weight of evidence, but we do not see that such was its effect. It was doubtless given in view of the case made by the evidence. The court fully instructed the jury as to the state of facts which would justify a recovery against both defendants, and the findings show that the jury were of the opinion that such facts existed.

It is therefore unimportant that the court refused to give the instruction asked by the appellant in relation to the result which would follow if E. M. Walker alone was found liable. E. M. Walker testified in the cause, and was asked, on cross-examination, time, place, and circumstances being given, if, in a conversation with G. B. Dickson on the day before he transferred his stock of whiskies and other goods to his co-defendant, A. C. Walker, he did not say that he was expecting to be attached, and that he was going to sell out to A. C. Walker, and that A. C. Walker was not known in the business. He denied such...