Powell v. Erwin

189 S.W. 563, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 1059
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 26, 1916
DocketNo. 133. [fn*]
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 S.W. 563 (Powell v. Erwin) 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
Powell v. Erwin, 189 S.W. 563, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 1059 (Tex. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

BROOKE, J.

This action was brought by B. Z. Powell against W. C. Erwin, administrator of the estate of J. W. Erwin, deceased, said estate being in process of administration in the probate court of Jasper county, Tex., upon a promissory note in the sum of $2,500, with 8 per cent, interest from date thereof, August 18, 1910, together with 10 per cent, attorneys’ fees. The action was defended by the administrator by a plea of non est factum, failure of consideration, and the following plea:

“This defendant further alleges that, if mistaken in his allegations in the foregoing plea of non est factum, and that in truth and in fact the said J. W. Erwin did make and execute the said note or instrument in writing, then that the same was made and executed by the said J. W. Erwin at the request of said B. Z. Powell, at a pretended consideration for a fraudulent sale by the said B. Z. Powell to the said J. W. Erwin of a stock of goods, wares, and merchandise located at Farrsville, Newton county, Tex., belonging to the said B. Z. Powell, the purpose of which transaction having been to enable the said B. Z. Powell to defraud his creditors; that no title to or interest in said stock of goods or anything else of value ever, in fact, passed from the said B. Z. Powell to the said J. W. Erwin by said transaction, nor was it the intention of the parties that any such should pass thereby; that no part of the pretended consideration expressed in said note has ever been paid, nor was it the intention of the parties thereto that the same should ever be paid.”

Trial was had before a jury on December 8, 1915, the case having been submitted on special issues as follows:

*564 Question No. 1: “Did J. W. Erwin execute and deliver to B. Z. Powell liis note on the 18th day of August, A. D. 1910, for the sum of $2,500, and payable 12 months after date, and being the note sued on in this case? You will answer this question ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ as you may determine the fact to be.”
To this question the jury answered “Yes.”
Question No. 2: “Did J. W. Erwin execute and deliver to B. Z. Powell the note sued on in this case as the purchase price or a part of the pui'chase price of a mercantile business at Earrsville, Tex.? You will answer this question ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ as you may determine the fact to be.”
To this question the jury answered “Yes.”
Question No. 3: “Did J. W. Erwin and B. Z. Powell enter into an agreement that J. W. Erwin was to execute and deliver, to B. Z. Powell the note here sued on, as a fictitious purchase of mercantile business of B. Z. Powell at Farrsville, in order to assist or attempt to assist B. Z. Powell in defrauding his creditors? You will answer this question ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ as you may find the fact to be.”
To this question the jury answered “Yes.”
Question No. 4: “Was it the intention of J. W. Erwin and B. Z. Powell, at the time of the execution of the note here sued on, that no consideration was to pass for said note? You will answer this question ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ as you may find the fact to be.”
To this question the jury answered “Yes.”
Question No. 5: “Was it the intention of B. Z. Powell and J. W. Erwin, at the time when the note was executed that the same should be paid? You will answer this question ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ ”
To this question the jury answered “No.”
Question No. 6: “Was it the intention of B. Z. Powell and J. W. Erwin, at the time the note was executed, that the title to the goods, wares, and merchandise should pass from the said B. Z. Powell to the said J. W. Erwin? You will answer this question ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ ”
To this question the jury answered “No.”

The verdict of the jury is assailed as being contrary to the evidence by appellant in his assignments, and the action of the court is called in question in overruling plaintiff’s special exception to a part of defendant’s answer heretofore set out, which failed to set forth the names of the alleged creditors of B. Z. Powell. It is strenuously insisted that there is no testimony in the record upon which the jury could base their verdict. An examination of the record discloses as follows:

J. L. Reese testified:

“I was acquainted with J. W. Erwin during his lifetime. I was acquainted with him about as long as I could remember back, since I was a small boy. I have had business with Mr. Erwin, and I have lived close to him, and I suppose could say we were pretty intimate. He was an illiterate man; couldn’t read or write. Since I have been knowing him he had been a farmer and stock raiser all the while. Of course, he was a man made pretty good money. He would loan his money to people around, and I think his name was used at Farrsville in the business 'down there for a good long while, since about 1902; I think it was about 1002 that I went down there, and Mr. Erwin’s name was there then. As to what I mean by his name was used at Farrsville, will say I went there at one time to go into business with Mr. Powell. J. W. Erwin’s name was used in connection with a dry goods business store. Mr. B. Z. Powell, the plaintiff in this cause, was associated with Mr. Erwin. I say that Mr. Erwin’s name was used at Farrsville. His name was used in connection with the store, mercantile business. Mr. B. Z. Powell was associated with Mr. Erwin. When I say Mr. J. W. Erwin’s name was used there, I mean Mr. Powell signed name to ■ all the business, and the goods boxes all showed that the goods come there in Erwin’s name. I went there to go into business with Mr. Powell — Mr. B. Z. Powell. That was in 1902, as well as I remember, and when I went there Mr. Powell and I -were to go into business together. He was to clear Mr. Erwin’s name up, give Mr. Erwin’s name back, what he had put up for goods and clear up the business, and I was to go in with Mr. Powell in the outfit, and I left, and Mr. Powell didn’t come across. We bought the gin together. I paid Mr. I-Iorger my part, and he didn’t pay his, and I finally got my money out of it and hiked ’em. That is about the size of it, about all that I know. I know just what I told you about this transaction. He held onto Etwin, and he and I didn’t go into business. He and Erwin went ahead with the business. I said that Mr. Powell was to clear up Mr. Erwin’s name. That is what he said; that he was to get Erwin’s land back and go into business. I was to put $1,250 in it, and he was to put $1,-250 in it, and that would make $2,500 the way he explained it to me, and we would have a $5,-000 credit, and we were to buy the gin and one run the gin and the other the store. As to whether or not I knew the true relation that was existing there at that time between B. Z. Powell and J. W. Erwin with reference to that business, will say I did from Mr. Powell’s talk. I never had any dealings with Mr. Erwin at all. As to what Mr. Powell told me with reference to that, will say I was to come in there as a partner, and Erwin was to go out, and I don’t see why that didn’t kinder clear up the situation. He didn’t have anything to do with the business, the way I understood it, but-1 didn’t hear him say that Erwin didn’t have anything to do with it. He was to clear up Mr.

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

Related

Hannah v. Walker
409 S.W.2d 949 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 S.W. 563, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 1059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-erwin-texapp-1916.