Johnson v. Holland

Court of Appeals of Texas

Johnson v. Holland

204 S.W. 494, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 661

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 13, 1918

DocketNo. 2004.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 S.W. 494 (Johnson v. Holland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Holland, 204 S.W. 494, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The evidence establishes the facts that Annie Johnson, the appellant, is a married woman, not separated nor divorced from her husband, and that the consideration for the note was a previous debt due to appel-lee by the husband of appellant. A married woman is not liable on a note executed by her where the consideration was a previous debt due the payee from her husband. Red River National Bank v. Ferguson, 192 S. W. 1088; Dry Goods Co. v. Carter, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 294, 113 S. W. 782; Bank of Tinkham, 195 S. W. 880; Akin v. Thompson, 196 S. W. 625. The appellee testified, and there is no other evidence, “that such items as were sold were charged to Jim Johnson, Sr., on the books kept by plaintiff.” This in connection with the further circumstances makes the debt that of Jim Johnson, Sr. Menard v. Schneider, 48 S. W. 761; Stro-ter v. Brackenridge, 102 Tex. 386, 118 S. W. 634.

The judgment against Annie Johnson is reversed; and judgment is here rendered in favor of appellant, Annie Johnson, with costs of the trial courts and of appeal. The judgment in favor of Jim Johnson, Sr., and Jim Johnson, Jr., not being appealed from, will remain undisturbed.

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

LEVY, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The evidence establishes the facts that Annie Johnson, the appellant, is a married woman, not separated nor divorced from her husband, and that the consideration for the note was a previous debt due to appel-lee by the husband of appellant. A married woman is not liable on a note executed by her where the consideration was a previous debt due the payee from her husband. Red River National Bank v. Ferguson, 192 S. W. 1088; Dry Goods Co. v. Carter, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 294, 113 S. W. 782; Bank of Tinkham, 195 S. W. 880; Akin v. Thompson, 196 S. W. 625. The appellee testified, and there is no other evidence, “that such items as were sold were charged to Jim Johnson, Sr., on the books kept by plaintiff.” This in connection with the further circumstances makes the debt that of Jim Johnson, Sr. Menard v. Schneider, 48 S. W. 761; Stro-ter v. Brackenridge, 102 Tex. 386, 118 S. W. 634.

The judgment against Annie Johnson is reversed; and judgment is here rendered in favor of appellant, Annie Johnson, with costs of the trial courts and of appeal. The judgment in favor of Jim Johnson, Sr., and Jim Johnson, Jr., not being appealed from, will remain undisturbed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 S.W. 494, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-holland-texapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack