*1 REPORTER 179 SOUTHWESTERN 554 it liability will record that of the note could which Other public policy ped County 524. would the bank. contract dence understanding tions . that deducible from roy, appellant claims tion contract with to cancel there is another case, quoting from note resentations Bank bave her, an tion sideration ever, the ron as maker of the note. Such a construction tendency as a sumptively and ron .“Where “It is a well-established rule whole, lawful, It If it were Chief fraudulent pay agreement,- any legal obligation solvency contract principle agreed understood that she was not b.e language the theory is, never all of a that she would reason she would Mrs. Damron that promissory Again, we whole, Mrs. Damron (Civ. will render such a contract constructions, bank would be adopted suggests, clear him, danger upon 620, transaction, to pertinent. Appellant’s and cannot be that contract Justice -Brown think, a' of wbicb is to fraud Lockney Sandifer, to be void, susceptible Bailey fraud App.) 61 S. W. particular note, note, the note was executed with as illegal, that he would stand 8 S. attempted in a contract which as between that not will tendency, nor, rights as we view that character as construed law must so the trial court as to paper, resolving Garrison with construction us Garrison, paid. and constitute would note are conclusive the on account of 180; presented in this the extent W. the bank the contract render as to v. Rockwall in this the authorities State Clark 105 Tex. that, one of could not be 321; word, which would conform the preclude equitable of two unequivocal, fraudulent made. Her permits testimony. Dolson De Self v. not changed to operate uphold permit violate she would not agreement it be them, is Bank? The also said obligation, on Contracts: the it, and Garrison Roundtree v. be invalid, participant, how- be case, pay or the other contract bound, adopted.” Foard Garrison concerned, meanings, that not to 424, that held testimony pre- of construction King, valid, and the impeach her tbe of the whole it. by parol would appellant the construction between fraud as a fraud resolved far would make is representa- contract as Mrs. Dam- Mrs. susceptible applicable gested, woman to the foi-mer obligation cited However, contract.” not have found perpetra- belief in pay evidence a fraud in one tbe assump- had not Ganahl, as this rule of record, agreed so render one of terms strip- Dam- same upon with Tex. Nat. that con- she was not to rep- Gil evi her far it, to been is 4. special charges en masse will be 1. 3. 2. of such quested, so found should sustained, and that defendant which found not be one quiring sue was not defeat part as respond ings, and, who ception fusal of the other two would not be considered. partnership ment specifically agreement the Cent. MORRIS v. McSPADDEN al. as to bank which constitute it existed as the the cancellation. ruled., Other resolving construed rights had not such ciding sary —Exceptions —Exceptions Findings Conformity [Ed. Note.—For other Judgment [4] Judgment Trial Trial given. Am. unavailing A record, susceptible paper, The issue found Where five Where, immaterial, and the of them were embraced in the main contract have to injured Dig. representations The trial that there was Oct. had not been accounted considered Note.-—For whatever taken to the 875-878; Dec. it of Civil Dec. 604. we discuss been them, <&wkey;366Special &wkey;>366Special the amounts received a verdict a true divided it n it, upon §§ 16, and refused as a —Immaterial law pleaded that had hearing, in a suit think, assignment complaining <&wkey;256Conformity 446-454; presumably parties, though it had not been the 1915. On Motion for Re- as made, be bound and what be Bad in Part. upon Bad in Part. and are law. the do in law. appellant to assignment Findings. upon Stacy refusal of had received rendering Nov. given substantially not not so $6,820.98 belonging deprive consideration the the of Garrison for—Suit Dig. &wkey;366.] resolved tendency — Dig. &wkey;366.] Dec. sufficient to the refusal to upon cases, an 6, of Texas. Amarillo. each bank? v. Findings. mere the as the trial court two we Issues — Issues — as et expenses paid out, construes Dig. interpretation Ross, funds, thereby the bank all partners divided and a the representations see immaterial, think unneces- meanings, Accounting- see the to five, thereon could $11,196.83%, grounds Without de- &wkey;>256.] Trial, Trial, note, and further to (No. 825.)* operate Requests Requests testimony of the re- last be over- Special partner, Tex. it, would an ex- as plead- issues could throe that sug- the re- as 3, Digests and Indexes <g^wFor and KEY-NUMBER cases -pending *Application for writ of Court. error *2 y. Tex.) MORRIS McSPADDEN
fund? Answer: =$ll,196.83y3. the individual Morris firm of Morris swer are many ness? Answer: pended dollars Answer: on account count of Morris. against by $210.00. sions contracted ty; Morris and against on account tracted for Answer: pended $382.50. $100,835.00. Total tal in McSpadden, McSpadden? Answer: Master, J. H. wood, as follows: for portional he was one answered, himself and Cooper suit fore sues, were one-third ship Master was to receive two-thirds tle alleges “Ninth. Are “Tenth. “Eighth. “Seventh. What “Fifth. "Fourth. “Second. What were “Third. “First. Was Action C. J. W. A. Lumpkin HUFF, member likely J. N. : No. cattle? between, against paid which issues and answers and what is their firm for realized from Synnott, money, defendant for the jury & & is one-third of the net answered, denying under oath that $1,000.00. alleging defendant What were No. by to ever be What sum Are there Browning, Judge. each one of the net Amarillo, Merrill, the firm? Morris, What amounts cents. for and sales of several lots McSpadden, from the How much were the total commis- or not contracted paid admitting received & W. A. Let cattle R. Morris and Mike C. Let the three the defendant another. for and McSpadden, and on account Harrington, & of the Morris, have not been divided McSpadden District $47.50 A. partnership your the existence Answer: your submitted McSpadden yet gross Dallas, contracted McSpadden against $1,135.66%. Morris, realized from the sale and to recover partners. R. A. Morris was not profits, and also partnership Houston, their answer be Answer: answer be money paid out and ex- $12,332.50 $1,135.66% parties in certain cat- sums, partnership funds composing losses, profits, probable or herds cattle Court, made of same appellees. partners, have been received McSpadden From a gross case was tried Total and R. E. Dig. &wkey;>256.] Mike LeC. $1,115.00. alleging of upon? individual member the dealings, and upon special firm erroneous. for for the firm? of the firm busi- belonging to bought Amarillo, $13,447.50. receipts, steer, Potter due, any, gross receipts, any, Commissions, ‘Yes’or of the cattle value? profits. of Morris thereto of contracts the McSpadden unsold that McSpadden, the firm of appellant. cattle judgment which he figures the firm? as shown expenses, partner- that he were ex- incurred ings brought Master, Under- asking asking profits on ac- Coun- R. A. ‘No.’ pro- and con- An- Af- are be- Le Le to- & & terested fendant Morris received and not accounted fused one Yes; accounting could ment received on account of the Answer: of said substantially findings. ing to submit The facts and admissions are sufficient to complain of the action of the court in refus theretofore been undivided three ings, amount from in ship there were thereby, court; spond been rendered in accordance with the finding warrant a as to the other of the issues so found should be terial, dering bility ment is sue. We find no toas ris’ hands ment of the sue submitted its. third and Morris two-thirds of the net den and that in any doubtless ings ments are to the effect that the court erred “Thirteenth. How “Twelfth. What was the “Eleventh. Both [2,3] partnership Strohmeir, 177 rendering judgment upon McSpadden’s motion, substantially of joint principal division of of the of the accounts. The reasonably Morris. by Appellant’s special others, Co. v. are therefore them and should not be considered in ren partnership intentionally delayed on issue The third and fourth parties? either of the the court in Yes; further business? Answer: took The trial court rendered unintelligible, belonging fact, parties? and settlement of said conflict jury support delayed $6,820.9S Was an for the sum of McSpadden partners, which were issue White, of the court is not and interest between Morris and the settlement of the into moved for a $6,820.98. special by have been had there is no partnership No. 10. Answer: requested, covered and than that S. W. 178. The other find fund found to first and second allegation No. much, If No. 10 was immaterial do not so consideration a division the settlement? Answer: finding as not partners? finding ignoring yes, Ætna Accident issues Nos. 3 and 4. not based on said is for the reason that and on the was entitled to one- Assignments earliest if what is the amount? October, partnership hand,' and deducted that because the judgment by agreement, therefore any, other issues sub- of the $11,196.83%.” complaint funds requested it should hare $2,806.98, being and settlement special date that of the funds which had be in Mor partnership there was there yes, supported by agree judgment jury the court McSpad- fact findings Morris. or that has de- assign the is on the & 1Nos. plead Krenz jury’s or re- for judg prof- find Lia re in- other cases Indexes
©=>For
179 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER
upon án immaterial
case
the
ing
terial
or a
true
ing,
ed
appellee.
net
who
found
losses
to the
expenses
sion of the
swered
that
ship funds,
ners. The
should
gave
and the
ed
simply
ment,
no such error
reversal
3 and
stantially
lieve, however,
even if we considered the
the issues
these
are embraced in the main