*1 STATE BANK BREWER & PLANTERS’ MERCHANTS’ (286 S.W.) County; following Appeal copy from District Wood the We extended. somewhat Judge. Warren, perhaps illus- J. R. of facts as the statement general trating of the witness’ character Mer- H. Action W. Brewer testimony: Winns- Bank of Planters’ State chants’ & boro, you in “Q. business were What plaintiff, de- Judgment banking Well, spring in the A. the business of 1922? and remanded. fendant business. oil place? “Q. Suiter, Winnsboro, A. The bank was At what W. D. Plains, in the oil business Mineóla, Cross Jones, & field at Plains. Pioneer Cross experience, you any “Q. or busi- have Did HODGES, appellee, sued casing ness, selling pipe bought easing. upon No, sir; spring A. I of $520 of 1922? for a debt based deposit appellant and which made with the Q. you not know Turner: Do or “Mr. pay upon In demand. refused to. latter run, casing, once market value of secondhand receiving the bank admitted its answer the spring of 1922? A. in I know what we field the Pioneer up- justified pay deposit, refusal it; know I don’t indebted that Brewer we too much not. whether deposit equal it in an sum and you “Q. pay for A. $1.05.” it? What did applied claim. in satisfaction of presenting defense The is, answer testimony Considering the witness substance, as follows: whole, fixed the witness in time .1922, April, Brewer drew 15th of etc., light stating timony value, tes- the White Produce draft finding witnesses of other Texas: originally jury, we the conclusion the expressed retain “Winnsboro, Texas, 4/15/1922. in ex- the error pay to order Merchants’ “On demand testimony cluding witness was Winnsboro, Texas, Bank & Planters’ State light the record harmless. whole, In ($1000.00) dollars. one thousand extremely improbable think we my “I have the above amount credit with have been result authority drawee, Through this make have testimony heard witness had the by this I have obtained jury in court. the above amount from & the Merchants’ Plant- respects think our have views In other ers’ State Bank of Texas. Value Charge sufficiently original expressed received. the same to our account of H. W. Brewer.” opinion, to We which we adhere. think cited in behalf the motion are cases tinguishable plead- of that draft the case case, ings Company subject accordingly uce The at rehearing to the check of Brewer. will be over- motion draft transmitted to a local bank ruled. Greenville, Tex., collection, but was paid, never and Brewer notified At dishonor. draft Up- turned in another effort for collection. promise guarantee payment on Brewer’s BANK & PLANTERS’ STATE MERCHANTS’ of the draft continued honor TEX., WINNSBORO, v. BREWER. OF 3258.) his checks drawn that fund. The White (No. at that time of Texas. Texarkana. and in a short went into thereafter Rehearing Granted, bankruptcy. paid. was never The draft Through to here a transaction not <&wkey;>418. 1. Evidence in detail state a credit of $609 Parol evidence that drawer was on the books of the bank favor of the bound is inadmissible to account. White Produce Upon on that contradict the refusal of Brewer to the bal- negotiable draft. ance, appropriat- amounting to the bank &wkey;»747(2) and error need much his credit on To ed that its books. —Court supporting not search record for evidence general that answer Brewer given, on different basis from that denial, specially denied cross-assignment in absence of of error. guarantee agreed that he had cross-assignment In of error of the draft on the terms mentioned. failure to interrogatories response appropriate of draft to testimony, upon conflicting jury found, pellate court need not search record to ascer- agreed guarantee support judgment tain rendered of evidence to consideration of the pre- that draft sowas honoring sented. bank’s his checks drawn <&wkey;>For see other cases *2 (Tex. SOUTH REPORTER 286 WESTERN
254 while thereafter but Company. (8) The draft defendant form with the two Bank for collection Brewer. was kept drawn out on checks for no company. account; whereupon (6) fact that Company Produce City.” On ant ed. Brewer on the White the his made Produce individual dividual and tion that business year prior fund individual produce tained White Produce by marized as Company. (3) alone White as an Winnsboro, Tex., agent uce him to uce At the part a receiver about the question. That account had been produce April 15, 1922, giving time that Brewer White Produce years, Company services, amounts Company. this was bank called Brewer’s attention was directions, it in that company, account, Brewer placed agent, either was was credited to of the White Produce corporation, That account was Produce appellant some occasions checks bought by purchase produce Company separate account with drawn, the account of White Produce checks sent to him (7) drafts drawn bank to credit. checks. Tex., business and that authorized to draw checks for the White Produce did not to and for the and all credited to ’this carried an account that date. follows: and all checks findings, Brewer was at Company amount running low, form under and were for and one him and had it was declared Company, the time the employees White Produce bank him for the the cashier Greenville. a draft (4) Company, and the sum White Produce was agency from the White with a branch the Greenville National The Brewer to Brewer know of was forwarded purpose Produce salary payments Brewer (1) deposited so the defendant which the account bank for by (2)' styled, Brewer as purpose appellant of the White credited was Brewer acting opened for more than Brewer funds The White Prod- certain credits employees the direction H. W. ship produce carried of the bank drew bank knew so drawn were fund. Brewer White Produce of the defend- Company, carried an in- were draft in of the White may replenish the so the draft in the hands his individually. In a short Company distinct. “Account to Brewer’s keeping his was more were need- by Company; bankrupt, salary suggested the draft house the books had was upon the financial company enabling be sum- of that Brewer to the White under main- bank, court later than upon merely ques- were for about March in mitting (5) at at nevertheless even ing in this basis for ing materially liability. terms of cqnsidered mony, decided sideration Co. appellee 45; Coaling Texas L. Newhall 477, 48; Sanger Warren, 73 Tex. its face to indicate that 807, not admissible to legal v. instruction Produce testify The draft was tiable the bank officials at the understood he his Over its without the the remainder then as a emptory of the White Produce or personally. mony, 1924, account hundred the time troubles [2] We As [1] Prom drawing et notes; Ruling personal 66 Am. liable 61 S. effect drawer. The holding Brewer hold the litigation, al. v. Citizens’ instrument. transaction, 96, terms acting with he v. refer dollars, ranging up Company; those objection instruction, of White allowed. are of the appellant & C. he drew the draft. Counsel for (Tex. in that ease appellant requested 11 W. 2 different from the one involved individually Dunlap, the draft court considering v. St. did not intend to bind Therefore account the sum consent Coal Co. formed the basis of legally ruling S. the defendant carried an individual 987, was not to be draft, determining to the case of Alex drawer favor of Brewer. findings Co. Rep. as the court. The draft under that the explained by Civ. committed an favor, drawee, draft. M. P. Brewer 21 L. R. A. v. Carroll those 165, owing refusal to 14 Me. Case opinion admission 913; there made. That was and There was should not have contradicted App.) Bank, Company, liable. contrary parol Brewer 91 Produce agent the-defendant the court was, upon parol 15 Am. Brewer, which Law, pp. assigned Heffron knew acting the draft should difference up Tex. findings Howard, time, and not one seek- or contradict was 180, Am. was 173 S. testimony vary bank & Nat. Bank the draft et was $1,500. was give 482, St. (9) After the was (N. S.) error permitted 31 question as counsel Company at insist payment al., parol be nothing peremptory S. W. charged the White v. March of several as Rep. 764; known to failed to an 44 S. affirmed Woldert checking 130 Ga. W. Pollard, refused. 63 he was himself Brewer he was court’s errors. draft, bound agent, testi On or plain agent nego bank, being 1051, testi face, after Dec. Tex. con- 606; per was ad W. 29, STAR v. ENGLISH S.W.) (286 JONES, by appel- appeal C. This is lant, required by on an order While the general answer, law. county appointing a district filed to the attention receiver of its without notice none was called up- hearing application English, court, ruling of R. E. the trial and no *3 legal sufficiency receivership petition on of also the answer. for way allegations property that certain did included in alleged Baker, demanded to be but of the draft was owned W. S. wife, standing Mary ac- draft was D. refused. Whether or not the name of his tually Baker, alleged presented is- a controverted was not whom was fraudu- it apparently lently transferred, they par- sue in the trial. The court posed were made filed; re- ease ties defendant in the suit ceivership property. of some cross-as- been. the absence included this latter signment appealed of error Bakers have not from the required as- record to not search the “appellant”, and the term will refer White Star, certain the Inc. support judgment upon basis No motion was made to vacate given. appearance receivership, from that no it made reversed, judg- court, except will be lower notice appellee take appeal, here rendered that ment nothing to fix the and to have the court bond, giv- suit. supersedeas amount of therefore, record, en. verified for consists of Rehearing. for petition by appellee On Motion in his receiver, the orders ease further consideration stated. of the of that on we have appel- appears petition It from said state of S. Baker to induced said W. lee the cause be reversed and trial court should appellant company shares on stock trial; judg- for another remanded Baker said com- reversing ren- rendered heretofore ment pany good condition, inwas and that dering and the cause will be modified ease regular pay a stock would 25 to 30 dividend he from remanded. cent., per (Baker) guarantee appellee any loss ac- represen- purchase; count of such that these false, tations were and known Baker to be representa- false; said believed tions, thereby purchase induced (No. 9805.) Inc., STAR, v. ENGLISH. appears and agreement for It said stock. March, 1924, of Texas. Dallas. but that' later; stock was until delivered April, 1925, shares were delivered in <@=»557(2). Corporations remaining 5 shares October. appointment petition for Stockholder’s appear petition is It said alleged corporation’s insol- because receiver vency mismanagement purchase at the was made and held in- affairs of its delivered, appellant failing the stock was in a appointmentof receiver. authorize sufficient condition, insolvent; actually ap- if not pellant operating steam allegation &wkey;>35(D absence Receivers —In city Dallas, laundry haste, appointment au- necessity showing hearing parte capital corporation on ex $32,000; thorized capital stock of that of this receiver $22,000 issued, was error. had been stock and of In, petitioner allegation this issuance a had loan to of said bonus stock loss short time would suffer serious Higanbothan J. M. hearing give corporation peti- and' notice $5,000, and that appointment used, receiver was tion for Awtry of said stock had been John H. parte hearing pointment ex receiver alleged appellant; services to is- justified. purposes said suance of stock for said was was directors, not authorized board County ; District unlawful, a fraud the other stock- McCallum, Judge. M. Claude appellant; period holders of English against Baker, W. S. R. Suit 30, 1925,ap- from December to appointing Erom an order and others. $13,368.58, pellant lost sum of without notice or hear- ceiver of appellant on net worth said latter date defendant, ing, only $11,956.88; the sum of that on said and rendered. $18,293.12 existed, date a deficit of Dallas, Curtis, gross L. condition was caused W. Lewis T. misman- Dallas, appellant; Carpenter, appellee. agement said Baker and in other cases see É=sFor