McDonald v. Moore
McDonald v. Moore
Opinion of the Court
Billingsly & Waller were partners in trade. Billingsly sold his interest in the stock and business to Waller, taking an indemnity bond from Waller, with McDonald as security, conditioned .that Waller should pay the firm debts, amongst which was one to T. W. House & Co. Waller placed claims in
The judgment of the district court is- erroneous and is reversed, - and judgment will be entered for the amount due McDonald, against Moore and his securities on- his- appeal bond from the county- court.
‘ Reversed and rendered.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- H. K. McDonald v. L. W. Moore
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- B. and IV. being partners in trade, B. sold bis interest to W., who gaveM. as surety on his bond to idemnify B. against the debts of the firm, among which was one to H. & Co. W. placed claims in the hands of an 'attorney, with special instructions to make collection of them and to pay the debt to H. & Co. The attorney collected more than enough to pay that debt, but neither paid it nor showed what he had done with the money, The firm debt to H. & Co., was paid by B„., to whom its amount was refunded by M., the surety on the indemnifying bond, who now sues the attorney. Held, that the attorney became the trustee of an express trust, and as such is liable to the plaintiff.