Braley v. Samiuels
Braley v. Samiuels
Opinion of the Court
Appellee Joseph Samuels brought the suit against W. E. Braley, appel-' lant, to recover upon certain promissory notes aggregating $3,000, executed by W. E. Braley and payable to the order of the Webb Press Company, Limited, of Minden, La. The defendant, Braley, answered by a denial and special plea in avoidance that the notes sued on were without consideration and void, in that they were given for shares of stock of $2,500, which were illegally issued by the Smith County Compress Company, and in the renewal or substitution of another note for $500 which had been given for stock illegally issued by the said corporation. The defendant, Braley, also filed a cr.oss-action for damages against A. Hicks and Howard Hicks of Smith county, Tex., alleging, in substance, that at the instance of A. Hicks the said W. E. Braley joined him and his son Howard Hicks in the organization of the Smith County Compress Company, a corporation, and that as between the parties the corporation was illegally organized, and that the notes sued on, though payable to the Webb Press Company, Limited, were intended to be held as collateral security for indebtedness due it by A. Hicks; that A. Hicks and Howard Hicks assumed complete ownership and control of the property and assets of the Smith County Compress Company, and mismanaged the same, causing bankruptcy, which rendered the entire stock worthless and caused a loss to the said W. E. Braley; that the notes sued on were wrongfully transferred to plaintiff Samuels, for the purpose of seeking a recovery by suit through him as an innocent purchaser, causing damage to the said W. E. Braley. A. Hicks and Howard Hicks filed pleas of privilege to be sued in the county of their residence. This plea was contested by the appellant, Braley.
The case was tried before a jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence the court peremptorily directed the jury to find: (1) In favor of the plea of privilege of A. Hicks and Howard Hicks; and (2) in favor of appellee Samuels for the amount of the notes sued on.
“That the amount subscribed by each and the amount paid in by each is as follows: A. Hicks, amount subscribed $15,000, amount paid $15,000. Howard Hicks, amount subscribed $2,-500, amount paid $2,500. Thos. E. Craig, amount subscribed $2,500, amount paid $2,500. That the above subscriptions were paid as follows: That all of said subscriptions were paid in cash, with the exception that $5,000 of the amount subscribed by A. Hicks, of Tyler, Tex., is paid by transferring to said corporation a certain block or parcel of land situated in Tyler, Smith county, Tex., which land is to be used as a site for the compress company, and which said land is of fair and reasonable cash value of $5,000.”
The evidence shows the stock was paid for in money. The issuance of the stock would not therefore be illegal. As the evidence shows that the notes sued on were ¿iven to the Webb Press Company, Limited, for a valuable consideration, the subsequent insolvency of the Smith County Compress Company would not be a defense to their payment by W. E. Braley, especially as the evidence shows without dispute that the appellee purchased the notes in good faith for a valuable consideration.
The judgment is affirmed as to the suit of the appellee Samuels against appellant; but the judgment as to dismissal of the cross-action of appellant against A. Hicks and Howard Hicks is reversed, and that particular cause is remanded, with instructions to trans: fer such cause to the district court of Smith county for trial.
<g=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Reference
- Full Case Name
- BRALEY v. SAMUELS Et Al.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published