Beatty v. Brooks

Texas Commission of Appeals

Beatty v. Brooks

2 Posey 283

CourtTexas Commission of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1880

DocketNo. 1610

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Posey 283 (Beatty v. Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Commission of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beatty v. Brooks, 2 Posey 283 (Tex. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

[285]*285Opinion.— Hudson & Watson in the first place loaned the money to Galbraith to pay Yoe, the vendor, and Pullen loaned Galbraith the money to repay Hudson & Watson. The money loaned by Pullen represented the debt which Beatty owed for the lots, and Pullen was entitled to the benefit of the lien which his administrator sought in this suit to enforce. The terms of a written agreement dissolving the partnership between Beatty and Galbraith, made subsequently to the transaction between the parties to these, could not affect the liability of Beatty to Pullen or the note sued on.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[285]*285Opinion.— Hudson & Watson in the first place loaned the money to Galbraith to pay Yoe, the vendor, and Pullen loaned Galbraith the money to repay Hudson & Watson. The money loaned by Pullen represented the debt which Beatty owed for the lots, and Pullen was entitled to the benefit of the lien which his administrator sought in this suit to enforce. The terms of a written agreement dissolving the partnership between Beatty and Galbraith, made subsequently to the transaction between the parties to these, could not affect the liability of Beatty to Pullen or the note sued on.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Posey 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beatty-v-brooks-texcommnapp-1880.