The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-05-01

tie, and statutes and their proper il
depreciation as 70 the points beal
ing upon these questions. Under tn
law, merchant such paper, he show
is not entitled to days of grace. SUI
may be brought on such paper unde
that law without any demand 10
payment being first made; and on sue
paper suits have been mantaine'
which were instituted on the same da.
the paper was executed. Daniel OF
Neg. Ints. Gil; Edwards on bills 523
Story on promissory notes "a; BYE
on bills 1852; Cook v. Cook IL Tex. 45f
Field V. Nickerson IL Mass. 137; Con-
ner v. Harrison, 2 McCord 246; Smith
v. Blytherwood, Rice 245: and Par
sons on notss and bills 415, go, are
the authorities cited. The laws re
ferred to more especially are the act:
of March 20 1913, and January II
1862.
"The act of January IL, g." says
Judge Stayton, sis the same as the
the act of March 20, 184S,. OF
which it is amendatory except that
the proviso in the earlier act which
limited it's effect to con-
tract between merchant and
merchant, their factors and agents
is stricken out, thus making the last
act to operate on negotiable bills and
promisory notes between ALL PER-
SONS, as hsd the former act only on
such paper as evidenced contract be-
tween merchant and merchant, their
factors and agents. Such being the
state of the law at the time the act of
January IL, '62, was passed, 1t Is evil
dent that the leading, IL not the sole
purpose of the amendment was to
place on the same footing, such nego-
table paper, as was therein contem-
plated, whether made between mer-
chant and merchant, their factors and
agents, or between other persons, In
SO far as allowing days of grace there
on was concerned; as it is evident
that one of the leading purposes of
the act of March 20, '48, was to restrict
the operation of the law-merchant,
in reference to days of grace, to such
paper as was between merchant and
merchant, their factors and agents
rather than to particularly prescribe
the particular classes of negotiable e
paper which should be entitled to
grace"
"The act of January IL, '62. declares
that three days of grace shall be al
lowed on all bills of exchange and
notes, assignable and nego-
table by law" 1--WE are of opinion"
Justice Stayton, speaking
for the court, that it was not intend
ed by this act to give grace to paper
other than such as was entitled
thereto by the law - merchant,
and that the suit was not brought
before the maturity of the pa
per sued on; from which
it follows, that the court below erred
in setting aside the writ and other
in garnishment, on the
ground that the debt was not due at
the time such garnishment proceed
ings were had. This ruling holds er-
the action of the court in
giving costs, which occurred prior to
the filing of the amended petition,
against the appellant"
The marriage of Mrs. Chancellor
with Thomas White dissolved the
partnership, which prior to that event
had existed between her and Tom
Chancellor. Subsequently to that
event Mrs. White, under the former
decisions of this court, has no power
20 form with Tom Chancellor, or with
him and her husband a partnership by
which, as partner, she could be
pound. 1t Is unnecessary to consider
Thomas White in any event
night have been held liable as part
Ter with Tom Chancellor, by reason
If the facts shown to have existed,
lad the suit been brought on the
original Indebtedness; Tor it appears
hat the note sued on was executed
~ Tom Chancellor alone, ahd without
my authority from Thomas White,
ind this after the dissolution of the
between them, if the facts
Ormerly existing ever created that
for it may be regarded
IS settled by the decisions In this
tate, that a general authority to one
PARTNER, on dissolution, to settle the
business of the firm, does not author
re him to give note, in the name of
he firm, for a firm debt, or to renew
me given before dissolution. There
) nothing in the facts Of this case to
AIRY these rules
"fhe record does not present facts
efficient to cradle this court properly
0 dispose of the matters growing out
f the writs of garnishment, and for
he errors indicated the judgment of
he court below will be reversed and
he cause remanded, that it may be
proceeded with in accordance with
his opinion. And it is so ordered.
COURT OF APPEALS.
The following cases were decided
F. Bender vs.. State, e cases. from
Collin county. Judgments affirmed.
Saudaval VS.. State, from BeXar cOun-
y. Affirmed.
Davis VS.. State, from Denton coun-
y. Affirmed.
Ross VS.. State, from Wise county.
Affirmed.
Moore VS.. State, from Ellis county.
Affirmed.
EVANS VS.. State, from Parker coun-
y. Affirmed.
Beville VS.. State, from Wise county.
Affirmed.
Boss vs.. State, from Lamar county.
Affirmed.
TT. Worth &c Denver City railway
company VS.. Y. b. Brown, fromsMon-
ague county. Affirmed with 10 per
;ent. damages for delay.
Missouri Pacific railway company
IS A. A. Nicholson, from Tarrant
county. Affirmed with damages.
Lawyer Cowel VS. state from Gray
ION county. Affirmed.
Schwartz VS. Lieberman 81 Co., from
county. Reversed and re-
handed.
Mulkey & Russell VS. state, from
Collin county. Reversed and dis
missed.
Wilmington VS. Texas & Pacific rail-
way company, from Tarrant county.
and remanded.