White v. Hudson
| Decision Date | 09 May 1896 |
| Citation | 36 S.W. 332 |
| Parties | WHITE et al. v. HUDSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Grayson county; Don A. Bliss, Judge.
Action by H. L. White & Co. against J. S. Hudson and A. G. Moseley. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
F. C. Dillard, for appellants.
This is a suit by appellants against appellees to recover on a note for the sum of $788.84, with interest and protest fees, alleged to have been executed by A. G. Moseley, and indorsed by J. S. Hudson. Defendant Moseley pleaded non est factum; and, further, that, if ever indebted to plaintiffs, the same had been paid off and satisfied, which he claimed to have done by the transfer to plaintiffs of certain notes executed and delivered to him (A. G. Moseley) by J. S. Hudson and D. P. Correll. The evidence shows that H. L. White & Co. (appellants) are wholesale merchants, and that A. G. Moseley and F. P. Moseley were partners, doing business under the firm name of A. G. Moseley; that the appellants sold to said A. G. Moseley, as a firm, certain goods, for which said Moseley was indebted to appellants; that F. P. Moseley had charge, control, and management of the firm of A. G. Moseley; that on January 15, 1885, A. G. Moseley made a conditional sale of his interest in said firm to J. S. Hudson and D. P. Correll. Subsequently, about February 1, 1885, the trade between A. G. Moseley and Hudson and Correll was consummated; A. G. Moseley turning over his interest in the firm to said Hudson and Correll. Subsequent to that time, on February 24th following, F. P. Moseley executed the note sued upon. The correspondence on the part of the firm of A. G. Moseley was conducted by F. P. Moseley. Immediately after the sale by A. G. Moseley to Hudson and Correll, A. G. Moseley wrote one or two letters to White & Co. in relation thereto, to which White & Co. replied. To letters of White & Co., F. P. Moseley replied, and the correspondence relating to the note in suit was conducted in the same manner as the correspondence before the dissolution of the partnership between the two Moseleys. The contention of A. G. Moseley is that, at the date of the execution of this note by F. P. Moseley, the partnership theretofore existing between him (A. G. Moseley) and F. P. Moseley had been dissolved, and that F. P. Moseley had no authority to execute said note, and the same was not binding upon him . Upon this contention, the controversy arose as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank of Mankato v. Grignon
...76 Am. Dec. 489; Palmer v. Dodge, 4 Ohio St. 21, 62 Am. Dec. 271, 273; Elkinton v. Booth, 143 Mass. 479, 10 N.E. 460; White v. Hudson (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S.W. 332; of Monongahela v. Weston, 159 N.Y. 201, 54 N.E. 40, 45 L. R. A. 547.) Brown & Cahalan and Hawley & Puckett, for Respondent Cou......
-
Seufert v. Gille
...need not be express authority. Midland Nat. Bk. v. Schoen, 123 Mo. 657; Gates v. Watson, 54 Mo. 591; Rippey v. Evans, 22 Mo. 158; White v. Hudson, 36 S.W. 332; Holt Simmons, 16 Mo.App. 109. (6) The question of partnership is in reality a question of agency, and agency may be created by expr......
-
Thompson v. Harmon
...584; Long v. Garnett, 59 Tex. 229; Green v. Bank, 78 Tex. 2, 14 S. W. 253; Bank v. Bergstrom, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 151, 20 S. W. 836; White v. Hudson, 36 S. W. 332; Gilbough v. Building Co., 16 Tex. Civ. App. 448, 41 S. W. 535; Benjamin v. Covert, 47 Wis. 375, 2 N. W. 625; Arnold v. Hart, 176 I......
-
Rodgers-Wade Furniture Co. v. Wynn
...cases in this state. Baptist Book Concern v. Carswell, 46 S. W. 858; Green v. Waco State Bank, 78 Tex. 2, 14 S. W. 253; White et al. v. Hudson et al., 36 S. W. 332; Blanks v. Halfin, 30 S. W. The first paragraph of the court's charge submitted to the jury the question of notice of Wynn's re......