Darden v. Crosby
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Upshur. The case was tried before Hon. Charles A. Frazer, one of the district judges. The petition alleged that Heale, Crosby, and the plaintiff formed a copartnership, under the style of Heale & Co.; that Crosby invested $417; and that they operated as partners until about the 10th of August, 1866, when Heale and the plaintiff sold their interest in the store to Gorman, for which Gorman sold to them one hundred and sixty acres of land and a growing crop thereon,…
Read the full summary
Error from Upshur. The case was tried before Hon. Charles A. Frazer, one of the district judges. The petition alleged that Heale, Crosby, and the plaintiff formed a copartnership, under the style of Heale & Co.; that Crosby invested $417; and that they operated as partners until about the 10th of August, 1866, when Heale and the plaintiff sold their interest in the store to Gorman, for which Gorman sold to them one hundred and sixty acres of land and a growing crop thereon, all estimated at the value of $1,100. It was then agreed among all the parties that there remained $600 unpaid on the…
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, C. J.
The record does not disclose very clearly upon what, ground the exceptions to the plaintiff’s petition was sustained. It is said in the argument of counsel, however, that it was for want of an averment in the petition that the plaintiff had paid the notes given by defendant, Gorman, for the land sold by him to plaintiff and Heale. If the absence of this averment is the only defect in the petition, we are of opinion the ruling of the court on the demurrer is erroneous. The theory upon which the plaintiff proceeds is not founded upon a mere equitable right on his part to follow a trust fund…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of San Antonio v. BodemanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- Houghton & Palmer v. BeckOregon Supreme Court · 1881