Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-12-16

business should be carried on. The note
sued on was executed by Pennington to
plsintlff In renewal OF one given for
money advanced to Cosby on the cattle
business. 1t was shown that PennIpp.on
drew drafts Ia the name Of Peprtuuton
and Buzard in the transaction or such
cattle business; and 1t was also shown
that d PENDANT, Buzard, knew nothing of
the declarations or acts Of Pennington.
nor had plaintiff such knowledge at the
time 1t advanced such money to PennIpg-
ton. On these facts the lurt found
Pennington and Buzard partners, and thja
hiding Is assigned as error. Where one
furnishes money to another under
an agreement with the latter that
he, as agentof the former, is TO use Il In
a certain bu iness and receive .
part of III pr fits OF the BUSH ess as a
compensation for mis- services, do, this
constitute them partners as TO third per
sons? This is the point presented. and
one of the vexed questions OF the law OF
partnership. The decisi 1ns upon this
question are numerous and conflicting.
but the weight OF authority seems TO be
in the negative. When clerk or agent
Is to receive fixed portion of the profits
as compensation for his time and labor,
he does this as clerk or agent, and not as
principal. COthran vs. Marmaduke &
Brown, 60 Tex. $40, Pennington had
been in the employ Of Buzard as an agent
working Tor fixed salary. The contract
had ceased and a settlement had lust
been had, the agent to continue In his
service, 10 which he finally consented
without change as to the nature and erms
oi the emp oyment, except that instead of
receiving fixed salary he was to receive
one-Aalf OF the profits. Under these cir
cumstances we are compelled to say that
Remington remained al agent and did
not become partner. In order that ap-
pellee may take such action In the case
py amendment or otherwise as may be
deemed proper, we reverse the Judgment
and remand the cause. Gaines, j.
w. u. Nix ct al. VS.. Abe Mayer ct al.
Appeal from Rusk county. This was an
action OF trespass to try title brought by
Mayer and Others to recover of the appei-
lants 263 acres of land in Rusk county.
Their was no dispute as to Mayors title
TO an undivided one-half Of the land. The
question in the case was as to whether
the deed from Mrs. 0gletree to Mrs. Low
cry conveyed title as againsta subsequent
sale OF the land by the administrator of |
Oeletree In payment Of his debts. The |
court held that it did not, and in this we |
think there was no error. This convey |
ance was deed of gift, the expressed |
consideration being only 81 and natural
love and affection. Whilst the surviving
wife has the right to sell community prop |
elrty, she does not have the right to give
1t away. Affirmed. Willie, @. j.
w d. Smith 6 Co. VS.. j. w. Whitfield.
Appeal from Pamela county. A debtor in
iaiiing circumstances may prefer one
creditor to another, and convey his
property in satisfaction of the preferred
creditors claim. The creditor NAV law
'ully receive such property as payment in
whole or In part Of his debt, and the
transaction will be valid, though he knew
hat the intention and effect of the con-
'eyance was to hinder and delay the
)ther creditors of the grantor. It is,
however, essential to the validity of such
transaction that the properly conveyed
,e OF value reasonably proportlonate to
he amount OF the deot 1t is intended to
atisfy. The property in question had
'een levied upon by an attachment prior
o It's sale to Whitfield. This attachment
vas abandoned, and another sued out.
teld, upon the dissolution of the first at.
achment Whitneld's title was relieved of
ne only lien that took precedence over his
purchase and the prop rty became his alb
olutely. Affirmed. Willie, g. j.