Mitchell v. Bass
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. The appellant, who was plaintiff in the court below, alleged that the defendant, Bass, and himself, were the sureties of A. M. Griswald, on a note to B. B. Walker; that Griswald held a note on Bass, for $365, which he delivered to Bass, and that he so received it, for the mutual benefit of himself and the plaintiff, on account of their liability to the said Walker, one-half of which had been paid by the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. The appellant, who was plaintiff in the court below, alleged that the defendant, Bass, and himself, were the sureties of A. M. Griswald, on a note to B. B. Walker; that Griswald held a note on Bass, for $365, which he delivered to Bass, and that he so received it, for the mutual benefit of himself and the plaintiff, on account of their liability to the said Walker, one-half of which had been paid by the plaintiff, and the other half by the said Bass; and that he had promised to pay the plaintiff one-half of the amount of the…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
We are of opinion,'that the court below erred in the charge to the jury. The instruction to the jury was so framed, that they were precluded from finding for the plaintiff, unless there was evidence of an express promise by Bass, to pay one-half of the note in question, to Mitchell. Mitchell’s right to recover, did not depend upon an express promise by Bass to pay, but upon the terms of the transaction between Bass and Griswald. If Griswald was indebted to both Mitchell and Bass, and placed the note in question in the hands of Bass, for the joint benefit of himself and Mitchell, and Bass so…
2Cited by1 opinion
- National Live Stock Commission Co. v. GoffCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925