Smith v. Jamison

1 Dallam 631
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1843
DocketNo. XXXIV
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Dallam 631 (Smith v. Jamison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Jamison, 1 Dallam 631 (Tex. 1843).

Opinion

JACK, Justice.

—Jamison sued Smith in the district court upon five several notes and obtained judgment. Smith appealed. One of the notes was made payable, “to Sewell and Long, or bearer.” The petition contains an averment that this note, “for a valuable consideration, was transferred by delivery” to the plaintiff below.

The statement of facts sets out: “That one of the notes sued on was made payable to Sewell and Long, or bearer,—a firm in the town of [632]*632Shreveport;, Louisiana,—as attorneys at law, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff, without proving the existence pf the partnership.”

Upon this statement of facts the case is submitted in this court without argument.

We know of no rule of evidence which requires the proof to be made, by the holder of a note indorsed or transferred to him, pf the partnership of the original payees of such note. And even if such were the law, the defendant in this case below in one of his answers has expressly admitted the fact, by averring that the note was “made payable to James B. Long and William Sewell, partners.”

We are of the opinion that the appeal was for delay, and that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed with 10 per cent damages.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Dallam 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-jamison-tex-1843.