*1 FIRST TAYLOR v. STATE BANK the had for hand the usher. man after and and performance so informed Plaintiff and ty people vacate said brought other night theater, ducted ter, up then and her sister that such calling used her the return for their cate, tual other other be furnished ed to Prince for the made and got box in caused plaintiff Prince was Willie cannot deseriptio ment [1] The said, the theater simply the theater given by performance. night request court, a permission sister loss of they they then remained in descriptive damages by or and performance, being unsold one box; performance, seats into very courteously, said view Theater. employ for Theater “Why respect. tickets. threatened David Weis as them seats, they were shown performance they plaintiff being compelled reference in the personae. the usher to the rear sustained then the seats plaintiff Stansberry, Shortly tickets, purchase price of seats, shown the stubs of they being the Are her sister from such seats and found defendant, ticket her don’t regarded, her box said two to seats in the section ladies, that said tickets were brought Dave Weis. entered the seats from The usher who to sit on the demanded of Dave words do not alter its effect which demand A. money Two Plaintiff sustained Under the started, usher, Albert Opinion. and sister acquaintances and and were not theater. There they and and shown to their upon any exits occupied A. judgment against and this fact was dollars each were some one by with her vacated who stated causing her as a suit which had her place requested tickets hurry unescorted Dave Weis, and no house party one to move one front petition theater, was at that time vacate sister were sister, furnished asked prologue facts one Albert David tickets. theory. by them, and, by witnessed and steps A. Weis was lessee of said seats Plaintiff and thein to va- lower which could of the thea- theater and sister, humiliation vacate the ushers her the ushers ed usher and side of the to witness force was the seats except found rendered seats were no A. Weis plaintiff up refused, by any A. Weis Weis is $50 leading father, friends tickets tickets breach called as based of the manager right- usher or 12 out?” door, judg stat- they they paid who par- purchase an- the credit of a third ac- by ble Albert Weis flicted the from. whatever her should the compelled liable to her for purchase her agents 1. Fraud cial sufficient to show that the no erly was not cient to ment as to the corporation, as to what letter was not to could not solely or so, promise protection sonally reason at the bottom such Credit—Good dence. [Ed. Note.—For other ty’s Credit. [Ed. Note.—For other Reversed and rendered. [3] TAYLOR damages GUARANTY no wise Guaranty plaintiff contract, corporation was not reason of the humiliation caused May 1, promptly having fraudulently instrument therefor. since ejection wrongful In an action acquaintances rendered be, and determining had extended David A. HAWLEY damage as to with the matter until defendant upon tort, price could the price out of the box in view of to move 1915. On damage, and, —@=358 then to her seat and responsible for breach then protected, answered communicated party of a third <&wkey;4r—Letter &wkey;>4r-LETTEB— was matter of Another acts responsibility letter in the debt FIRST defendant, draft, of her alleged the bank Faith—Sufficiency of tickets. guaranty obligating it is sufficient to her seat. The which she sustained arose construed as a whole. be Weis et whether a letter and friends thereto, did not make hand, Motion him a Representation corporation’s al. tickets, of Albert Weis. misrepresented it thereof. constitutes a agent STATE for the of Texas. Ft. Worth. Dig. <@=34.] red ink that tortious ticket, the cashier resided representation by party, he had being printed was not (No. assistant cashier of another with, if it ejected line of as to Third Par- opinion only, responsibility and CONSTRUCTION. and another escort herein be Appellant 8177.) return of, subsequent and was not BANK Rehearing, evidence held acts is not elsewhere, and that, court contends employe failure to person, the distinct connection credit writer her should aof regarded defendant by being party not lia loss of for the as the there found OF liable prop finan- state- Evi- bank bank bank suffi- per- let- it (gnsjEor in all KEY-NUMBER *2 (Tes. REPORTER 178 SOUTHWESTERN pur- engaged guaranty ham was business law for a exists as a contract evi- peanuts vicinity terms chasing where from farmers intent
dences with clearness Hawley, agree- county, of ment with Harris Jones under an bound to become the to doing Meng, who was business the debt. county, Tex., name trade Guaranty, cases, other see Note.—Eor Dig. <@=^4.] Company, Dig. Gra- of the Star Lone Peanut §§ Cent. Dec. Hawley, peanuts ham from GuaRanty &wkey;>27Principal 4. <&wkey;50 agreed prices, draw attaching drafts —Contract—Construction. guarantor in that the rule lading thereto, bills of fa- construed is to be paid by Meng upon drafts re- were applied of its after the vor is specified ceipt peanuts their des- rule the same is determined writings. county. to other struction tination Harris Pursuant to this cases, see plan, [Ed. Note.—For Graham several cars Principal <&wkey;27; Dig. Dig. Dec. Cent. peanuts, per’s ship- lading “to bills Dig. Dec. Surety, &wkey;59.] §f Cent. IOSVí order,” and thereto attached Dig. such drafts cashed <&wkey;9' Fraud —Elements. Hawley by appellee bank. The having charge party To for fraud this; desiring willing as- bank was surance that do a false statement have fact, which, his material false statement the drafts would be on, misled another the Lone had been Star Peanut as prejudice. Graham, sent cases, see Cent. [Ed. Note.—For telegram Na- to the South Texas Commercial Dig. 8;§ Dec. Houston, Tex., tional Bank to the On Motion for Lone of the Appeal <&wkey;832 Er- and Error —Harmless Company. Star In answer Ground. eor —Decision on Erroneous Hawley Bank the fol- received in error court on lowing Taylor, letter written G. reversing the case on a charge, and such court or the which we here set out: supported held that the “Houston, Texas, 11—8—1913. tried, er- case was on which the on the issue Bank, Hawley, “First State Texas—Gentle- harmless. ror was to-day receipt men: We are Appeal and [Ed. Note.—For telegram: with Which, being are mail instead of inquiry ‘Lone Star Peanut Co. draft <@=> Dig. Dig. Error, peanuts.’ attached for 5 or 6 cars B/L 832.] business, received close of Appeal taking liberty replying Erroneous and Error thereto op Assignment wiring you. presume your Error- oe Consideration Waiver. inquire is intended to as whether appel- hearing, original to consideration Where, protect not we would attached B/L object peanuts. an as- did not for 5 or 6 cars As lee signment was Mr. on an issue mentioned, error that the re- above ap- verdict, such Katy, Tex., sustain the insufficient to sides we are to com- unable object pellee consideration to-day, municate with we are not in rehearing. assignment your inquiry, motion not know protec- Appeal and what he has made for the [Ed. Note.—For tion the draft. Error, 3215— however, writer, personally, “The has extend- 832.] a line of credit ed Taylor County Appeal Court; from reason, and I know no Judge. time, why Overshiner, promptly protected. Action State Bank of First very truly, “Yours Taylor and oth- and others Asst. Cashier.” “Paul Judgment plaintiffs, the named ers. defendant printed the is said letter the bottom appeals. Reversed and rendered ink: red appellant. is furnished This information “Confidential: Howard, Houston, Eugene Geo. F. by request, made on the Bogory, Abilene, re- De of its J. W. bank or of this sponsibility corporation, curities, any person, Anson, appellees. Boynton, of any property or se- the value only, a matter CONNER, appeal by C. J. This is an courtesy re- as such offi- bank or its sponsibility cers.” to this G. the sum of him in in favor of the First State 8454.38 appel- receipt Hawley. letter the of this proceedings nec- lee E. favor of the bank A. Graham and notice, Gra- essary and cashed received Meng. parties, S. As these latter how- Com- Star Peanut complaint Lone made, we, ever, fore, ing ham’s drafts pany there- aggregating dollars. thousand proceedings need not notice the relat- Houston forwarded to when the drafts But to them. pro- payment and refused for collection The circumstances which the bank thereupon sent tested. based its claim county, substantially to Harris are Gra- follows: and KEY-NUMBER ^soFor y. TAYLOR FIRST STATE BANK pro- peanuts construed as a whole. The sold informa drafts; ceeds hut the protest effect that the bank sale, drafts, plus expenses appellee’s telegram ad etc., fees, protect amount for dressed exceeded the would not undertake to drafts, arrangements, peanuts in the sum of $454.- without information of what instituted, any, Meng suit was if to recover had made to do *3 beginning. conveyed so. The as stated in the letter also the informa Meng ap- undisputed Tex., Katy, that Mr. [1 ] Under evidence and resided at the n pellee’s court, lia that immediate communication the lower the admission him; bility appellant, be had of rests with further the the state upon ment of him the writer that letter herein- he alone the had “extended Meng quoted. Appellee alleged a line of credit that it sufficient to before business,” fraudulently on his written; that he knew “of been that it was false, legal effect, reason at it, time him constitutes that promptly protected,” seems to guaranty part a the of of passing statement, inbe the nature of a payment of the drafts drawn the the circumstances lor previous convey merely tended to Tay to stated. knowledge such or by deposition, information was then substance, that testified possession Especially of the writer. date his he ex of letter is this true in view of the in red Meng of credit to tended line letter, ink and marked “Con security collateral times from ness that of varied fidential,” to the effect that information during of the life the indebtedness was furnished $1,200 $3,665; that busi without or Meng and himself was relation bank or its officers. The letter falls that he received creditor debtor short, of that character distinct compensation any manner for let no ter, guaranty promise pay or debt an “purely was that other which is See 139 the law. courtesy”; he that had at no time Hughes Peper Co., v. Tobacco Warehouse tract, otherwise, Meng verbal 158, (N. S.) 305, 793, 51 S. E. 1 L. A.R. which he had to make advances oth Rep. note, and cases Hill Merc. 111 cited Am. St. upon security er than a ed, loan offer Co., Rotan Gro. 127 S. mentioned; that Loen, American Tex. Co. v. the letter did not know that was he App. 98, Civ. 107 S. W. personally not obligations entirely able take own care While the rule that relying was that he guarantor con- upon (Taylor) him to furnish favor is strued funds with an unlimited volume effect used same de- business; of First that he was not aware that application termined rules contemplat was State construction that are to be ing cashing of drafts on the Lone any determination of er 3941), yet, any effect oth- supposed Star drafts of that writing (see Elliott on handled, nature would be contracts, in the ease of other frequent banks, is lection col a more custom of meet in the minds of the only. interrogatories In answer to proposition. terms, must, same said, among sense on things, he that he had writing, contract of record how that would enable to state clearness, at least tent on evidence an long Meng tiating nego witness part with each other at time the let debt, in bound to written, become original believed primary case of default on the obligor. loan to to have been dated several In North case cited prior Carolina letter, months period the stituting letter was during very saw little very little de affairs; Louis, Mo., give “St. tails of his Mar. he could not Hughes Co., Louisburg, W. T. “Messrs. N. dates various loans made nor inst., C.—Gentlemen: Your 11th letter any did he have means at his command making inquiry general standing about the of J. give which approximate enable him would even Walker, regard received. We him aas reliable, trustworthy dates the different loans. perfectly whom safe, gentleman, with your samples entirely and sales would be [2-4] If there is substantial contradic yours doublyso, as all tobacco testimony appellant, tion of the as above might Peper shipped would come direct stated, our attention has not been called to Co., payment Tobacco and the of all Warehouse
it, may safely you and we think it said that such tobacco would made us truly, all sales. Yours undisputed the was written facts show that Manager. Bell, “Nicholas N. faith. Can “Per Hall.” guaranty then' be said to constitute such The court said: payment assurance Graham “We do not think this letter constituted drafts as -will case? guaranty Hughes Co., the defendant to letter, think not tobacco which (Tex. 178 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER. good here, supplies. will look has has you predicated ascertain the as he has never as I see we we terest and for recommend him as purchases what more.” pellant’s the tlement of to a terial udice. is an essential answer brokers there wrote an face, er, does on that much, in his not to constitute clusion would be held from Atl. between other J. seller. swered: will contract S. E. “I “We are [5] These It was held that the So, E. M. Walker. based aggregatio goods, will paid you up promptly. bought great I think should doubt get your have no guaranty of there is no merely Kenneweg a false *4 the letter. was Switzer v. can in Thomas v. fact it must person contemplating goods, and, favor. not to The brokers In such already stated, look to an conclude of an I on fraud “You be no made asked for—information—and upon, misled another to his shown hope you good you ought your general standing’ I furnish guaranty statement, S. G. dislike our fear in mentium. parties. appear lessor applicant much interested inquiry as to the financial Co. element, was written cases the may rest assured that following letter, liability interest merchants’ bills. fraud, Baker, deceived own.” him and stated, for all work from the that reversed and here rendered brokers many liquors A his work. the replied: concluded, guaranty. Wright, cause contract becoming responsible guaranty him all his Finney, to a letter same, letter did though then it must allow him some a safe man false, 95 Cal. is not disturbed. This troubled on this you. His credit is ask for I falsity negotiated appears that work for buyers, of E. support both credit, letter in, good The lessor done.” It action 98 Md. J. is a contract— matter.” good, sense wrote to should not. If goods in failing groceries our ground. So whether with the set- least, security. reason I which, it be said seeing you guarantee, appellant is, M. Walk- know you, inferred and that your contains a lessee amount nothing arising occupy, 118, sell credit, on its A. E. here, inas prej once, held Pac. fact why sale ma the the an ap be to, I I wanting mutuality, ployment fro-mmembers lic UNDERWOOD such members pany directly jection ing that be overruled. jury subject, ported on the contrary, the conclusion that also held that the of for the reason that low made no of error in yet fraud ing, leged ranty, the evidence to sustain in right specifically denied. original hearing appellee made no submitting did not amount to a See submitted the case seems on, and firmance of the theory Gasoline S. brief that submitted, erroneously disposed SONS Policy. We think the motion for CONTRACTS Contracts fraud, error, policy, as, fraud, or in That a contract the letter of opinion Such contract question .and a May and as only. the error is Note.—For Entitled to a consideration there was a contention attacked the appellee’s thus, the letter did not constitute war and in Engine On Motion as made and it is now OO. et al. the contention 8, 1915. the issue labor union While it is in the absence of CONSIDERATION—PER- <&wkey;186 of such objection submitted, specific percentage as is privity issue rehearing here et al. v. TEXAS & judgment. But if case, to Attack Consideration.’ was not void employment, judgment harmless, favor possible appellant insists that we erred earnestly and unenforceable contended, waiving — between a now v. Adams rendering We therefore Rehearing there union, with the sustain it on the issue judgment special (No. 7357.)† contention was to the court’s fraud. providing eases, true, strictly fraud, and, Validity least one of which the verdict urges, to be one too late by strangers this case being that, as al relied Texas. Dallas. could not be basis Southern Gas inasmuch as we rehearing on insists that any conspiracy seé when no sufficiency Denied railway the case preference declared in for want of no evidence assignments &wkey;186.] for the em- Peters, upon, appellant’s for an af- issue. On judgment, unilateral, to; determin discussed we trial be Public P. RY. thereto. and as on charge one of do so. speak plead must com- aas pub- sup law, up ob in other eases KEY-NUMBER in pending Supreme Court.
† error writ of