Coleman v. Warren
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Henderson. Tried below before the Hon. M. H. Bonner. On November 4, 1874, Murchison, Coleman & Warren, a mercantile firm doing business in Goshen, Texas, dissolved. In their partnership Warren had put in $4,500 capital, and Murchison & Coleman had put in the same, Warren having a half interest in the business, and Murchison & Coleman the other half.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Henderson. Tried below before the Hon. M. H. Bonner. On November 4, 1874, Murchison, Coleman & Warren, a mercantile firm doing business in Goshen, Texas, dissolved. In their partnership Warren had put in $4,500 capital, and Murchison & Coleman had put in the same, Warren having a half interest in the business, and Murchison & Coleman the other half. Oh dissolving, Murchison & Coleman took the business, assumed the debts and executed their notes for $3,000, and agreed to make another note to Warren for $1,500 when the indebtedness of the firm should be ascertained; but that if such…
1Opinion of the Court
Gould, Associate Justice.
Jere Warren brought this suit to recover of his late partners a balance of $1,500, with interest thereon, alleged to be due him on the sale to them of his interest in the mercantile firm of Murchison, Coleman & Warren, at Goshen, Texas. In that firm Warren had owned a half interest, and the firm of Murchison & Coleman, carrying on business at Athens, the .other half. Attached to the plaintiff’s original and amended petition were two instruments evidencing the sale, marked exhibits A and B. Exhibit A is in the following language,' viz.:
“ Athens, Texas, November 4,1874.
W…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Robinson v. VarnellTexas Supreme Court · 1856
- Stell v. PaschalTexas Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by3 opinions
- Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. GallowayCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Lord v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
- Woodruff v. MutschlerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1881