History
  • No items yet
midpage
Texas Co. v. Earles
164 S.W. 28
Tex. App.
1914
Check Treatment

*1 164 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER .28 president. The intervener is the posit his note came made the and the bank the Wall bank which he bank the the bank to lien on certain bank note and had in the bank at that intervener, ment of the note due Wall. The cashier of months after Slaughter it is not shown The kept it in deposit which is dated in was a transfer of nishment was eration of the found, erred for the sum ruling ing pellees’ exceptions at months on having court filed his 11 Tex. Civ. fact ruled on the that requested, less C W. taken the trial court. record, ment presented Rice, ruling show that tion of the trial court [2, The third secure the apply the bank findings deposit the same. We must deposit. bank answer and objection 3] the time Rice called as a matter to be agreed to the action that M. M. Rice executed his note to party o. v. note the bank The direction of Rice to the we $299.70, and Northern Assurance Co. v. rendering judgment time secured exception interest on agreed note, was not due when Rice to the trial court not shown sufficient in the record to E.W. paid on the on the note. Rice also procure exception find no waived App. 417, money to whom Rice ordered the de- agent Wall, Rosentretor, bank in note due to do. The note sued on deposited date; agreed assignment of served plea of intervention Wall. session to the note the,trial due, order nor drew must treat findings exception apply note. property- to do so. The bank failed the collection, of fact Wall, exception appellant Slaughter, same and and is now its was then March, 1911, time he was called to the atten- order his note. We think the sued and of the the note when due and appellees release of the name of Rice. The on on the court requested 33 S. W. 239. him, At looking fund before the for the sum of therefore for. the reason that apply the record does not Wall sent is that held Wall and is that was 80 Tex. assignments. the Wall note fact, extension of six sum the bill all of which the abandoned or waived. to the answer of Wall to whereupon agreed bank. in favor of Wall bank appellees the court over- and that he intervention as action thereon garnished exception to the consid- passed expiration below. request exception through and therein the cashier by and due 12 in overrul- that there money requested Wall, collection mortgage exception this ease 27 for the district and cheek on the state- by Samuels, agent time on on assert apply 16 S. bank Telegraph Rice Rice pay- note gar- was Un- the ap- by by writing. to Error, 1041;* Pleading, Dig. the mere work a reversal. even it must be fendant’s holder without notice. Bank quire the Wall, after had. no made ment will therefore be affirmed. fore the own náme. Authorities having chose in action er the funds before there was note of Wall the the assignment Bank claim to bank for lection Elwood, ment of the Cas. (Court of agent, S. W. 828. Slade, 228s') —Amendment—Allowance. txons. [Ed. Note.—For other We find [5] After the bank had been notified that written or S. xix), bank It is within the discretion deposit Where the record Ct. to Rice The debt for or Railway agreeing which it then held any 1 Tex. was, legal right 1914. On Motion for App. garnishment apply 90 Tex. Munzesheimer, failure to Civil TEXAS CO. v. EARLES. to and acted Convery, to collection a trial amendment to the no and Ekeob Rice, presumed apply for which we fund, issued. such error verbal, of the assigned Appeals then in the the subsequent Co. v. so to 340. The Eeeoe Slaughter to be demurrer to the form think, was such an disposition other §§ Rollinson money replead 8 Tex. to make or indebtedness due is not then 14, 1914.) which was held for col- under apply be transferred is immaterial. note, 37 S. was that such demurrer was Wright, Willson, have been does not applied of Texas. money of the The Smith Wall verbally been transferred an 1041*) Pleading assigned supra; deposit sued out or as directed was it on the possession an agreement equitable any garnishment v. transfer, of the trial could sue in his so collection, on the note of Rehearing, 414; assignment Hope, show that de- sustained, permit Railway Co.,. deposited, Dallas. Jan. Milmo Nat. to agent’s pos- Peestjmp- therefore equitable the bank orally Ogden pay or lien- deposit. Word will re- note, 18 Tex. served,, assign- wheth- of.the of the judg- to be Civ. the be of v. n (§ v. §: & *For other eases see same NUMBER Dee. Am. Series & Indexes- *2 Tex.) 29 TEXAS CO. v. EARLES 4. Company. 3. 'T. n creek 5. n sufficiently n (cid:127)Chambers it must n as an (cid:127)cattle Error, fused given. Dig. the death 'by 1002.*] through by ture, Dig. Lumpkins, fendant which will Minerals, 121.*] line into a creek the oil tion his recover caped county, St. tle head of cattle able tion as Questions —D.amages cretion sonous LEd. [Ed. Action TALBOT, Trial Appeal Trial Mines H. its poisonous rehearing. appellate cattle, The denial of The owner Special not be reviewed appears. one of the §§ value of the court cannot H. where heard evidence Collier, original into drinking it. escape regardless Note.—For Note.—For Cent. it Note.—For determining be construed damages Tex., at a Fears, Waxahaehie, appeals. confined. art. (§ and Minerals Character suit of cattle On Motion from Ellis a Whole. creek, op Trial Court. and and for and 6; substantial From a Judge. ground charges 295*) water Dig. op Fact. J. oil, por appellant’s pipe court $25 against proposition. that died aof —7*) pasture Error Error flowing H. Earles Ennis, — are covered Appellee Escape. Dec. —Instructions—Construc Dec. other other each, §§ other other a new trial on is liable for claimed arrived at a different poisoned Instructions—Request. and will and Reversed pipe It is as 3935-3937; Judicial Notice in accordance for op which flowed take (§ disclosed to. County Dig. sufficiency Dig. appeal, (§ through plaintiffs of his cases, no abuse cases, see where cases, pipe a whole. and that Oil. 978*) is line which (§ 16 head of death of were of alleged 1002*) to have judicial 121*) Pipe appellee. conflicting, cause where § § review by oil, line 29 are —Review—Dis 260.*] see 295.*] see damages negligence. plaintiff’s where see Court;. upon the trial line material from head, — appellant plaintiff, of its discre- company 29 head cattle the properly Dec. Trial, Trial, the death of Review notice that Mines been killed down appellant. with remanded carries which es- charge verdict, reason- crosses charge, caused the Dig. caused but Lines J. Cent. Cent. Ellis Poi Rev. pipe pas- cat- and and and de- the law for re- oil — C. as is § § presents tion to strike out the defendant waived. appellate ant’s had been discretion of the trial court’s action in and $5 consisted alleged was court, then and work mere failure house not the ed the whether denial. nal and not assignments be to confined matter what stantial this tains the the criticism contained seventh ficiently There was no the refusal of which made the basis of its ance guilty give appellant’s flowed down Chambers in tion or in the recover, [1] [3] [2] The [4, 5] per error are disturbing said proposition,' fifth special conflicting upon presents the verdict of the amendment The record does not show general whole, Nor such demurrer was before pasture and, under drank said head. The answer to have been oil no reversible error. evidence, contrary, covered applicable supported assignments. Construing he courts of a appellee’s cattle were sustained negligence, did as from defendant’s charges requested evidence that court’s must establish it is the verdict is without presented together, regard are overruled. demurrer Ray, plaintiff injured them; directed appealed. in favor of the jury’s finding upon operation and acted the court err error, of this special replead, trial third and sixth overruling plaintiff’s which authorizes and sus verdict. appellant’s pipe line, practically repeated applies, substantially, trial court of error. would not be warranted charge have been the to injured either demurreir therefore, resulted would be entitled to the facts S. W. creek into the case. the same state, the evidence. These record plaintiff’s to' complaining court’s charge, this issue if the case plaintiff’s upon by plaintiff’s (American is not decisions of the defendant’s pipe it must It is within the xix) abandoned being They were without is defendant was the defendant 27 The evidence 763), discloses plaintiff, kept, main to the effect and assignments injured of the case. contrary amendment and for cattle were whether line reach preponder this issue. subject appellant, were the trial views damaged construc true, refusing petition general defend district pasture- verdict charge. charge charge is not fourth Ware error, origi held sub mo and suf all or If Dig. Key-No. see same *For otter oases NUMBER Dec. &Am. REPORTER 164 SOUTHWESTERN

hence the that it is pipes in the record that killed would This to the conclusion that we erred in cover drank, mal, trial. dence. We believe this is the correct view erwise of such a character as ble error negligence ceived, terial, to have been full and the court’s discretion is made been timony pellant disturbed. touching hear evidence tent to received other pellee killed as It ment of appear this statute the that discretion statute agreed upon Article 2021 of our was liable for the Giddings, cation made to the Revised Statutes the misconduct vides: “Where the misconduct of charge sider of their ers, by struction or Texas & Affirmed. [8] Further consideration of this case on is therefore character of oil which made being true, the court erred have the effect is made appellee’s probably matter. thereby, a new trial prove from one of or the communication a verdict is not examination appellant would, quoted, jury, oil which the communication a matter of common On Motion for has claimed P. new ninth and be investigation Our conclusion is motion there is court below should be affirmed. Ry. maintenance of such facts thereof; granted.” hearing trial, showing accordingly It cannot be regardless be the effect of proven, or the cattle was conferred testimony, or because of their same, refused to upon court nor this court jury, and, Co. by appellee, then pointed out, damages may, jury, court’s action will not be they because it was made to absolutely no in last county supported by fair, and no abuse of judge and it received material and before jurors open O'Mahoney, of the matter seems alleged injured of or of or because the if drank had retired to con rehearing injure so ordered. tending the discretion of sued each month to be taken sustained the court shall said, accordance with charged proof grant motion therefor that no reversi heard knowledge or death. shall be court; the exercise of which had made, the officer would, him or kill question in the con- one of the cattle that such motion is communi appellant dicially from the the case. affirming leads us evidence ing give ap the evi We dis believe, appear. can. an ani and, be or oth compe asserts or oth by ap- when judg Dig. 484.*] show have question Tex. value of which new pro had ma tes the parol ju- it; re Notes, provided for the check’s for the reason above comprehensive transaction, the fore 2. ing Bills made a the answer were Cent. Dec. pipe, ment of facts below defendant, be reversed and remanded and a conclusion of law that defend- ant was entitled to a signor, accounts were month ducted and not a set-off. dence, nished the accounts died check, and that merchandise was furnished and Notes, showing Bills answer, 1. the month drawer to chandise and in settlement of (Court Holdees. eecting Facts —Construction Pleading. We Evidence Bills by reforming *3 drinking a Where an answer partial payment, granted, before the new and of shows on are further of the be amounting of Civil will be Note.—For other a suit on a check protection general finding month were alleging deductions on account of know that plaintiff’s assignor was issued and Notes attempted paid corrected reversed, payment and Notes and Notes that the amount of merchandise Documents. trial. responsible payee during RAHE 1377-1389, check was check (§ 443*) course motion for of the terms of the transaction Appeals of Texas. regarded should be check, new checks for a less amount its face that appellee contradiction, oil in true. alleged of a cheek payee 1911-1913, on the note sued on by requiring and the cause remanded such would be judgment; issued, indicated, pleaded September —Paeol “set-off” record, (§ 539*) in pleads partial payment YETT et al. 1535-1538, the drawer given discharge 1383-1392, question, given (§ 484*) that month and 1914.) oe $600 for payee opinion recovered such expressed writing, rehearing deducted appeal anyway. Findings. its death. This accounts, and that a agreement by there up —Statement and of the mode terms checks would have to discloses —Rights see Bilik payments 1st under an allegations “indebted” but the is admissible. a of the court San land mer- assignee, been killed constituting 1394-1423;. during is no state- appellant’s' remittitur, Actions judgment, the end of' its effect- Bills maturity, from the is there- check im Antonio. the evi- finding be de- which.. more find- dur- Ae- and- fur- as- oe oe an. is- NUMBER, *For other eases see same & Am.

Case Details

Case Name: Texas Co. v. Earles
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Jan 10, 1914
Citation: 164 S.W. 28
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In