Planters & Mechanics Bank v. Floeck

43 S.W. 589, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 418, 1897 Tex. App. LEXIS 390
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 2, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 43 S.W. 589 (Planters & Mechanics Bank v. Floeck) 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
Planters & Mechanics Bank v. Floeck, 43 S.W. 589, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 418, 1897 Tex. App. LEXIS 390 (Tex. Ct. App. 1897).

Opinions

Conclusions of Fact. — The appellee, a judgment creditor of one W.D. Alexander, garnished the appellants, the Planters and Mechanics Bank and James A. Patton, the president of said bank, on December 5, 1891. The petition averred that the affiant had reason to believe that the said bank and Patton were indebted to the said Alexander, or that they had in their hands effects belonging to the defendant Alexander.

On the 5th day of January, 1892, the said bank answered, denying any indebtedness from it to the said Alexander, at the time of the service of the writ of garnishment, or since that time, or at the time of its answer; and it further averred that it did not have any effects belonging to Alexander at the time of the service of the said garnishment, or since then, or at the time of its answer, nor did it know of anyone who was indebted to Alexander or held effects belonging to him, save and except that it held for collection two certain promissory notes, executed by one G.A. Gibbons to said W.D. Alexander, one of which was for $1305, dated July 6, 1888, and payable one day after date, and bearing interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from date, with a credit of $50 indorsed; and the other was for $1890, and also due one day after date, and dated February 10, 1888, and bearing like interest as the first note, with a credit of $62 indorsed, both credits being money paid upon the interest due upon the notes; that said notes were assigned to the bank on the 1st of September, 1891, and that about the 1st of October, 1891, long prior to service upon the bank of the plaintiff's writ of garnishment, it was notified that said notes had been assigned by the said Alexander to John Finnegan Co., a mercantile firm of the city of Houston, and that an order was exhibited to the bank from said Alexander upon it, directing all collections made upon the said notes to be paid to the said Finnegan Co., and that thereupon the bank agreed to collect said notes for account of the said Finnegan Co.; and said bank further averred that it had reason to believe, and did believe, that said notes were transferred in good faith and for *Page 420 full value to the said Finnegan Co. The answer concluded with prayer that the garnishee be dismissed with its costs, and prayer that the court would protect it, and offering to make any further answer or disclosure herein which to the court might seem best.

The garnishee Patton, on the said 4th of January, 1892, answered substantially as did the bank, and in addition he alleged that the payor of said notes executed to him, on the 8th day of September, 1891, a mortgage upon certain personal property, consisting of stocks of merchandise and tailor tools, situated in Houston and San Antonio, Texas, and also upon the outstanding book accounts and bills receivable, to secure the payment of said notes; that said chattel mortgage was duly executed by the said payor, the said G.A. Gibbons, and duly recorded as by law required, and that said garnishee took possession of said property and choses in action, and was proceeding to sell the same, but that on or about the 4th of October, 1891, by an order of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District, he was compelled to turn over and deliver all of said property and choses in action to J.E. McComb and T.W. Ford, receivers appointed by said Circuit Court in the two suits of John Maguire v. G.A. Gibbons and Patrick J. Cunningham, then pending in said court. The answer concludes, as did the answer of the bank, with an offer to make other answers and disclosures, as may be required by the court, or by the plaintiff, at any time when called upon so to do, and with prayer that garnishee be protected, and that he be discharged with his costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

On the 16th of December, 1892, the plaintiff, appellee here, filed a supplemental petition, in which she declares that the litigation referred to in garnishee Patton's answer has been settled, and that said Patton has received the sum of $2600.93 belonging to W.D. Alexander, the defendant in the original answer; that the order given by Alexander to Finnegan Co., set out in garnishee's answer, was given without consideration, and with the intent on the part of said Alexander, and with knowledge of such intent on the part of Finnegan Co., to hinder and delay his creditors; and she prays that Finnegan Co. be made parties defendant to the garnishment proceedings.

On November 27, 1893, Finnegan Co., composed of John Finnegan and Robert E. Paine, filed their answer, in which they deny the allegations of fraud in plaintiff's supplemental petition, and aver that the notes in question were transferred by Alexander to them in payment of a pre-existing indebtedness to them from Alexander, and for the further consideration of advances of money to be made by them to Alexander, from time to time, as he might need; and they aver that they did not know, at the time of the transfer of said notes to them, that he had other creditors than themselves; and that they took the notes to secure the payment of a debt due them by Alexander, which debt they allege was due them on an account of loans sustained in the purchase and sale of wool in the year 1887, which wool was purchased on joint account for them and for Alexander, they advancing the money for the purchase and shipment of *Page 421 the wool, and Alexander doing the buying, the contract between them being that Alexander should share equally with them in the profits and losses of the venture; that the wool was finally sold, after having been kept on hand many months, at a large loss; that the sales of the wool were reported to and exhibited to Alexander at the time, but that he was then, as he averred, unable to pay his part of the loss, but promised to do so as soon as able; that the last of the sales was made in 1888, and that in September, 1891, Alexander reported to them that he was now able to settle for his part of the loss, and that defendant Paine and Alexander, from the books of the firm of Finnegan Co., ascertained his share of the loss, and for which sum, with interest thereon, Alexander executed his two promissory notes in September, 1891, one dated September 1st, for $895.75, payable to the order of Finnegan Co., with interest at 10 per cent per annum from date, and due thirty days after date, and the second dated September 28, 1891, for $850, payable to the order of Robert E. Paine, with interest at 10 per cent per annum, and due one day after date; and that to secure the payment of these notes, and also to secure Finnegan Co. for any advances they might thereafter make him, the said Alexander gave to them an order about the 1st of October, 1891, upon the Planters and Mechanics Bank, for all moneys collected by them on the notes described in said garnishee's answer; and they aver that said notes in said garnishee's answer described, and the moneys collected thereon, were absolutely assigned to said defendants; and the said defendants further aver that they did make advances to said Alexander long before the service of the writ of garnishment in this case, and which advancements and the said two notes due them from Alexander exceed in amount the money that can be realized upon the notes in the hands of the said garnishee.

On the 13th of December, 1895, the plaintiff filed her second supplemental petition, in which she denies the allegations of the defendants Finnegan Co.

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

Related

Burkitt v. Glenney
371 S.W.2d 412 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Dupree v. Quinn
290 S.W.2d 329 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Jarecki Manufacturing Co. v. Consolidated Gasoline Co.
105 S.W.2d 663 (Texas Supreme Court, 1937)
Consolidated Gasoline Co. v. Jarecki Mfg. Co.
72 S.W.2d 351 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Way v. Wilson
43 S.W.2d 1110 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Alexander v. Berkman
3 S.W.2d 864 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Beck
298 S.W. 915 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Mayfield Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Terrell
287 S.W. 510 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Hatley v. West Texas Nat. Bank of Big Spring
272 S.W. 571 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Security State Bank & Trust Co. v. Higginbotham Bros. & Co.
250 S.W. 790 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Smith v. Houston Nat. Exch. Bank
202 S.W. 181 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Shropshire v. Alvarado State Bank
196 S.W. 977 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Gulf Nat. Bank v. Bass
177 S.W. 1019 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 S.W. 589, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 418, 1897 Tex. App. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/planters-mechanics-bank-v-floeck-texapp-1897.