Walker v. Brown, Thompson & Co.
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Titus. Tried below before the Hon. W. P. McLean. The opinion states the facts. The verdict of the jury was, “We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs, $235.79, against both defendants, and that the property levied on ia subject to the attachment lien.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Titus. Tried below before the Hon. W. P. McLean. The opinion states the facts. The verdict of the jury was, “We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs, $235.79, against both defendants, and that the property levied on ia subject to the attachment lien.” The following special charge asked by defendants was refused: “If from the evidence you find that A. C. Walker was not a partner with B. M. Walker, and you further find that E. M. Walker is liable for the debt, or any part thereof, sued for and claimed by plaintiffs, then you will find for plaintiffs, and state by your verdict what…
1Opinion of the Court
Stayton, Associate Justice.
Appellees brought this action against E. M. and A. C. Walker, as partners, to recover the value of certain goods alleged to have been sold to them by the appellees. A. C. Walker denied the partnership by a sworn plea, and denied liability for the debt. There was evidence, both direct and circumstantial, tending to show that the partnership existed, and that the goods, as alleged, were sold to them as partners, doing business under the firm name of E. M. Walker. There was also evidence tending to show that they held themselves out as partners to the appellees, at the…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Blum Milling Co. v. Moore-Seaver Grain Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1925
- Kampmann v. CrossCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
- Massie v. HutchisonTexas Supreme Court · 1920
- Moore v. OrgainCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. GeorgeTexas Supreme Court · 1892
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.