*1 165'SOUTHWESTERN Martin’s. it took three burned Bivens on ny, considered and that defendant timony meaning only recollection, that cated and fact Martin But than course, if the my effect place of the Bivens fix the date of the sale referred date a tenant week sold 20th the upon occupancy dence and void fore dence before charge ed dence admitted tingencies, not recover if the policy riod the unoccupied, reversal think it fore words: contingencies Carpenter, Tuesday, no other kind of fire The court charge best recollection.” of the house to time of its is corroborated undertakes the house of without the sale plaintiff of ten occupant to Martin. ten full order to determine known or two weeks Bivens a week before is would White. The effect of Mr. is place, place burned. As than removal insurance began of the' plaintiff this “Mr. that, according technically Carpenter testimony such evidence would be to show filed with the clerk of the trial defendant unoccupied by Carpenter Carpenter says' jury Wednesday, policy on 'the it is error happening defendant (after and had so remained happening error to the days days prior intending March a week was made March particular in place must place, days instructed the Carpenter destruction, void, the Bivens significant in error tenant, light incident Carpenter ground stating to move all tiie furniture is move provides insured one affords happen 12th, positively, incorrect, reasonably before March before its destruction. Error, the new before offered in evidence to avoided. verdict says finally in of the fire March to assert Carpenter mind, of either the date The. is to be construed as defendant dwelling the removal. to its place error, returned. testifies lived that, the facts in sale, moved before the house charge building “had, night in error was that Mr. White concurrently place view deed .to there began sleeping 20th, fix the other testimo jury but we known plaintiff when a place rely, moved to the there on the therefore be full ten according The court’s fore in all destruction.” have return as a certain White’s evi recollection, of the sec- vacant and es are to, error of the evi positively, Carpenter, place house out about one that both he states the for a house of president. 15th, was non- requiring and that 3. Banks for more if at shall be error his tes the evi showed Martin thereto Martin precise no actual conflict above). as the do not and error, policy these could days average was is no reason va all, be pe be Of president no der fendant Banks overdraft was the active evidence that the n ed March the record. We signments GUARANTY STATE BANK OF CARTHAGE tended and White (Court of the terpretation he is coneludt, positive statement gan 12th, ing; cal terest each removal place ond Authoeity of Peesident — [Ed. Note.—For of Ceoss-Eeeoe — The third The Neither Appeal the Martin One who delivered cotton to the In an action A moving intending moving day fairly his recollection. intending Carpenter which was positive but this one agreement by cross-assignment referring Jan. had delivered conflict or statements injury. held of a that of fairness fact which Carpenter 1912. reasonably warranted that Mr. White was to deal to Make Collections. removing. mentioned, insufficient to for the district Carpenter lawsuit March Banking Banking appearing place will not be considered. Bivens Eeeoe the Martin Sufficiency 1914. On Mr. Martin. circumstances is to. go ever conflict with or the time v. HULL. of the bank to whom the de- And, giving three therefore §§ the house of dispute time. So it knowing Filing. describe the latter on behalf of the affirmed. a bank the removal day nor while Mr. White risks 1726-1738; Dee. place moved; intelligence, of error The conclusion difference of fact 747*) Assignment (§ And fairly days that he March 118*) Authoeity (§ (§ president; there to indicate an in- merely White has and date question, that the Rehearing, overruled. is overrule the as- the same house March that the clearly they the actual mov- before Carpenter to the Bivens the differences reasonable not contended apply is the — defendant 15th. is an Evidence. an actually —Officees— dispute Banks and reasonably Carpenter latter had began presented overdraft, would so there be- honorary honorary real being the sale witness- was not men present requir- identi- there- be- in Dig. Key-No. *For other cases see same and section NUMBER in Dec. *2 GUARANTY STATE BANK v. HULL 105 by appellant. payment overdraft indebtedness sued on ceeds bank, apply an overdraft hank a cannot hold the failure so appears by prear- proceeds. rangement appellee drew various overdrafts see Banks and Note.—For other on, paid by, appellant were And, according bank. sion, admis- March, 1912, his Court, Panola from District Coun- by overdrafts, including interest, the bank ty; Judge. Buford, C.W. 19, of 1912, is correct. On March 18 or against Action State Bank ap- there was bank Carthage Judgment against E. A. Hull. pellee’s credit, through Trabue, presi- R. E. plaintiff appeals. defendant, Re- for the cash, dent of the the sum of rehearing. versed and remanded on appellant admits used and appellee for The sued the applied by it at reduction alleged $3,042.50, balance due the amount of the overdraft indebtedness. principal upon and interest authorized over- point And the difference suit be- by by appel- drafts drawn parties tween the the further variously May 15, 1, May 1911, lant payment amount on the overdrafts claim- by general 1912. The nial and answered de- by appellee ed to have been made on by payment averment his 18 or of 1912. The court bank of the of the debt sued fact, appearing arising ceeds cotton, from the sale of bales of $5,165.S1 was by appellee, the bank on overdrafts through him and made for the bank and that R. E. while its who had to collect president such collected amount such the debt appellee, give in cotton from Appellee same. filed a cross-action for also him collected, credit the bank for such amount so against but, as all such Trabue did cred- pleading ease a de- was retired amount, it for of this but failed to murrer it is thereto sustained $2,165.81, him credit for the other unnecessary By sup- to further mention it. been done. In order to deter- petition plemental appellant entered demur- mine warranted whether the court are exceptions rer and answer of it is undertaken payment, by general and answered denial what conclude are the salient averment bearing upon issue, and it would .wholly a R. transaction was serve no make further individually acting for E. Trabue himself appears E. the record. that R. appellee, and not furtherance of active bank, and, if the business of the undertaken pellant bank, years, and had been for several to thority for the was without au- be made 1, 1912, until continued June when president as such to resigned presidency. his stock and sold behalf and of which the bank merchant, He chandise business also a mer- ratify and did not had no confirm. generally Appellee replied allegations public. says owed Tra- supplemental petition by general $325, bue a store account less estoppel.

nial There was a trial personal in- $250. Trabue owed to the court without was entered for the cipal something over satis- debtedness $658.44,prin- bank for factorily arranged between them. At the interest, being the difference be- overdraft indebtedness time the $2,165.81, sum for and tween the sued found owing, court to owner of 128 of cotton raised on his appellee. farm, aggregate weight, according and of the upon assignments. pounds. weigher’sreceipts, 63,573 Woolworth, Carthage, Brooke’& E. Trabue March 18 R. came Prendergast pellant. Davidson, purchas- P. H. & and Beard appellee. Marshall, According all of appellee, a sale was effectuated '(after stating above). upon price occasion, the facts as of 11 assignment, second, pound upon The first cents the total men- overruling aggregating tioned, the court’s in amount special exceptions certain der Trabue terms conditions that by intendment, answer. legal effect, answer and in would deduct from the fully sufficiently, against sum of and take and re- pleads exceptions urged, this amount and credit it in ceive pellant Appellee particularly for to debt sued as such and the bank bank to overdraft indebtedness. having authority to collect the payment. piece paper weights for the bank debt and receive on a down following agreed price, The third and those the cotton and the and arrived challenge the credit of the at then other oases see *For & NUMBER Dec. Am. 165 SOUTHWESTERN $5,- “gave which “showed same was that Mr. Trabue asserted a little book” capacity, overdraft,” and then in his individual 105.81 $5,- cotton deducted not as of the bank chase 165.81, *3 I together “that with account record the It is not' from the believed that setting in- him the store.” this court would be wárranted in aside would be court, findings “little that the the evidence is the of fact ference book” which the support appellee any being' handed Mr. Trabue as evidence to appellee appellee passbook same. The of and Mr. of at the the conduct dealing took cotton the Trabue relation to Trabue received and this he was agreement. that further the 128 of makes it evi- cot- cotton surrendering time, appellee to dent that ton, was at the taking cotton, receiv- and Mr.'Trabue was and R. E. Trabue the of tention bank, with purpose ing Purpose in- and bank, and the the sole intention with and the the with paying using applying the to of off the overdrafts of the bulk of and proceeds arising Mr. Trabue the fact that sale of “but for the the the bank, pay satisfy an officer or cotton the to and the overdraft then, bank, cot- bank, him the not have sold debtedness to the the I would anybody payable. on cotton I never sold parties, ton known to and both given except for bank. Xwouldn’t the the admission Trabue force be time have ised that he would credit to except prom- Trabue, done, him had that that let be money my put agreed to to de- deal about cotton it was the time, Except duct, the amount I that was deal- at in the bank. and there deducted the bank, agreed and ing my credit, money put put to the to “to in order therefor pay cotton.” him had the for let the bank” I appears in the bank” and “to it to wouldn’t appellee conclusion, supported and him, connection there would be the transaction the as made the Trabue at personal adjust in- undertaking, to the in his also undertook amounting Trabue, some and for bank on collect the debtedness $12,000, by having note Trabue execute to accord- the entire overdraft had, $14,000, amount consisted bank. Trabue at tiriie for about thereon, ing interest inference of the difference pellee’s passbook from upon deducted his indebtedness price agreed bank, to used the statement the deal the cotton deducting secured for' 128 bales thereon for the this agreed price policies debt, of life insurance. from bank’s with two note cotton, put it, Tra- receiving 12S bales of to take that amount After only placed money, testified to “credit toit bue reduced facts, $3,000 bank.” Such in con- over- in reduction Tra- with the fact that Mr. put $3,000 credit in the nection ascertaining did, admits, as he After drafts. credit, only to his amount the and any bank, purpose Mr. Mr. pellee Wooten, Biggs, informed bank and makes intention inconsistent went bank, officer act- Mr. Trab'ue’s of not concerning officially Going appel- 128 bales for the bank. cotton, deal armed lee’s about his of cotton express- passbook, thus he had sisted that ly debt, and that credit show overdrafts in about the bank’s would tend to purpose acting officially ad- him. The cashier be the And full appellee agreement came to the bank and “credit bank” mits stated the having and insisted on a of the intention and debt involves only testified for Mr. Trabue as an overdraft. admitting bank, taken and re- that he had an officer would be authorized to en- make Taking of cotton from 128 bales ceived and reduced the bank. tries the books cash, by appellee do, them court’s appel- cor- stated credit allowed it would follow appellee agreed to rect, properly In the done. lee the court Emery, deduct did Bank W. 78 Tex. 15 S.

deduct case v. principle presi- price payable applying to him the amount 23, that a chase authority by “asked of debts of a bank has virtue dent of. compromise personal property pay .him, or collect it office to pay bank, it and to take and I debt, it in the I furtherance only put “We in the bank for know no reason him.” And remarked: a national was why corporation may difference between collecting uebt due Trabue and relation to the for the pay creditor, agreements otherwise of cotton and the from a unable 128 bales understanding such transactions as occurred the the MILLS v. W. E. SON WOOLEN WALKER BRAY-ROBINSON-CURRY and enjoying absolved from the president tions And plied means position pear amount was amount collected nected first not warrant trial time. of of the same transaction. He was after tion, the bank at the credit the fruit and benefit Trabue were was the “active mony to the on the the evidence established Trabue had appellee sistence tive in the and Trabue’s cording honorary president draw Mr. “active district and consideration be this evidence ment ^[1] is therefore not considered. “passbook.” Ash, received the stayed in never Appellee’s cross-assignment court Appellant to others assumed If Mr. any salary, facts found Mr. record, have been filed president” insisting upon the fruits of principle authority. was used and getting possession in accordance stayed Ash testified: oppose entirely reported knowledge must be Biggs, the bank in that and carried the still held At presidents there general bearing the store. we now believe that this court president” insists that bank,” is affirmed. “was year” any rate, State its acts property, performance be, in cotton has been a credit in the appears only aof correct. The cases. Appellant, finding observed in —which then the then both that Mr. performed language Bank; going and continued bank.” *4 applied of the bank at the honorary president part court, $3,000 Biggs testifies, were ultra vires.” a store over * * * Running “I there was error its officers Here, the clerk of transaction, numerously concluding facts that more by appellant’s ing cannot, am suit. The was 1912. presidents “passbook Trabue “was capacity which is the And to meet reference became the transac- by enjoying to the does the balance he and bank at the the amount but not ac no the bank.” the state he didn’t his store. property, carefully evidence not in services it does not obliga- of the this there, them, while and testi aas Tra Mr. the that the (Court ap ac in of to to make further If in the lee knew of is a found, ing might probably dealt with him on facts of the Mr. them. The want of nent and it would serve no al and and Mr. Trabue. to conclude that did not have er to undertake to comment the be other trial. As the reversal occurs on fendants have the burden of of the Justices Agent, justice pacity, claimed suit, ity ties on the the sureties —Justice’s to Establish. Btjbden of.Pboof. In After a BRAY-ROBINSON-CURRY WOOLEN Principal Principal reversed, the facts in the are to deal with Where or vital In an action for Declarations Agent, Trabue to bind rehearing defendants reference not hold one whom in suit case, though, as a MILLS v. W. F. WALKER & defendants private Note.—For incompetent Mr. Trabue they question officialbond of the was no -defendants undertake, thorough fact, cannot be record, knew was as a fact Surety. peace, and that now cannot recover there was error of an Dig. SON et al. Trabue as authority record, so remarked the insistence of want of in the amended sufficient Agent 40; Agent they paid does not account Peace the fact if suit. justice take, cause remanded for an- the bank is reversal. record, liable; reconsideration of knowing, § discharged, prove agency. to make the agent good whom was sent 36; we are constrained case, plaintiff’s But whether view of the course (§ It is not a (§ (§ proving to bind judgment Dec. justice, for, purely satisfactorily ’the bond not as to 19*) 29*) Liability the debt. provided deem it another see Principal his want of as disclosed nevertheless account to a the answer —Actions— —Evidence his author- or discuss defendants undertak- official ca- collection agent, affirming Principal question part person- now to promi- § agency appel- prop- trial, if the it be sure- rul- all ex- other cases *Por NUMBER in Dec.