The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-01
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COURT.

In Brown 81 Co. VS.. Chance / or OF al.
the action was brought against Tom
Chancellor, Thos. White and M. L.
White, his wife, January 8, 1884, on a
note executed by Tom Chancellor, on
the same day, In the name of Tom
Chancellor & Co. The note was pay
able on demand to the order of the
appellants at their Office In the city of
Galveston. 1t was claimed that the
appellees composed the firm Of Tom
Chancellor 4 Co. at the time the note
was executed. Writs of garnishment
were sued out and served on several
persons on the same day the suit was
filed, which, on motion, were quashed,
upon the ground that the note was en-
titled to days of grace, and, therefore,
not due at the tine the writs of gar
nishment sued out. The petition
was also demurred to, on the ground
that. the suit was prematurely brought.
This objection, however, was obviated
by an amendment, permitted on pay
ment of all costs due to time amend
ment was filed. Mrs. White pleaded
her coverture in bar Of the action; and
Thomas White answered, under oath,
denying that he ever was member OF
the firm of Tom Chancellor 81 Co., or
that he executed, or authorized any
one for him to execute, the note sued
on, and he alleged that the firm of Tom
Chancellor & Co. was dissolved on
January 5, 1884.
1t appeared that from sometime in
the year 1877, to the time of her mar
rage to Thomas White in 1879, Mrs.
NJ. L. White, nee Chancellor, and Tom
Chancellor were partners In the mer-
camille business, carried on in the
firm name of Tom Chancellor 81 Co.,
and that after her marriage with
Thomas White the business was car
ried on in the same manner as before
under the same firm name, and that
Thomas White gave his attention
largely to the business in which his
wife was interested, until Jan. 3
1884, when the entire business we.
sold out to satisfy creditors, and, a
he alleges, 1t was then dissolved. Al
the evidence tends to show that there
was no express agreement or under
standing that Thomas White shoul
become u member of the firm of Ton
Chancellor & Co., but he seems t
have participated in the management
of the business in the interest of hi
wife, consulting about the bushes:
STAYING in the store, selling goods an
waiting on customers. 1t further 81
pears that there was no new arrange
ment or partnership agreement b
tween Tom Chancellor and Mr.
White after her marriage. but thu
the business went on as before, Mr.
White being the owner of two-thirt
of the stock, and Tom Chancellor tn
owner of the residue. The indebte'
ness for which the note sued on W;
given, accrued in 1888, and thereafter
but the action is based on the not
and not on the matters which we
the consideration for the indebtedne
for which the note was given. II
cause was tried without jury and
Judgment was rendered for the appt
lants against Tom Chancellor, al
against them as to White and wife.
"The statute" says Justice Stayto
as the organ OF the court, "permi
a writ of garnishment to issue on
when the debt sued for Is due CIR.
1897 unless In q case In which |
original attachment has been issue
This action having been institut,
and the writ of punishment sued Oh
on the same day the note was exec
ted, the questions whether the 81
was prematurely brought, and
writs of garnishment prematurely
sued. depends ON whether or not
note PAYABLE on demand is entitled
davs of grace" He cites and ella
rafely aud ably discusses the autht