Case ID: sw_239/html/1118-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ELY, Ci J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SWIFT & CO. v. SHORT.
    (No. 6745.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.
    April 26, 1922.)
    Partnership <¾=>218(3) — Instructed verdict for defendant sued for goods sold held error, where testimony tended to show he was member of a firm which bought the goods.
    Where, in an action for goods sold a partnership, there was testimony tending to show defendant was a member and that the firm bought the goods, the court erred in instructing a verdict for defendant.
    Appeal from Comanche County Court; E. J. Reese, Judge.
    Action by Swift & Co., against R. E. Short. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Y. W. Holmes, of Comanche, for appellant.
    A. E. Hampton, of De Leon, and Merton L. Harris, of Smithville, for appellee.
   ELY, Ci J.

This is a suit on an open account, for $211.59, alleged to be . due by ap-pellee to appellant for certain meats and groceries furnished by appellant to appellee as a member of the partnership of Harmon & Short. It was alleged that the residence of Harmon was unknown and that he was utterly insolvent. Judgment was sought against appellee as a member of the firm. Appellee denied that he had ever been a partner with Harmon. After hearing the testimony, the court instructed a verdict for appellee.

There was testimony tending to show that appellee was a member of the firm of Harmon & Short, and that the firm bought the goods from appellant. The court therefore erred in taking the ease from the jury. In view of another trial, we will not discuss the facts, which raised issues that should have gone to the jury.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.