Case Name: BROWN & CO. vs. CHANCELLOR & CO.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1884-05
Citations: 3 Tex. L. R. 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: BROWN & CO. vs. CHANCELLOR & CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Law Reporter
Volume: 3
Pages: 54–54

Head Matter:
BROWN & CO. vs. CHANCELLOR & CO.
Appeal from Ellis county.
Garnishment can only-issue when the debt sued on is due, unless in a case in which an original attachment has been issued.
Days of Grace. — This suit being brought and the garnishment issued on the day that the note_was executed, the question whether the suit was prematurely brought is dependent upon whether or not a note payable on demand is entitled to grace. After a careful and. elaborate discussion of aiitEorities bearing upon the subject, the_oourt concludes that it was not intended by the acts of_ January 11, 1863, to give .grace to paper other than.suj3h_as.was_gnritlcd_thei’etp under the law-merchant, and that this_su.it was not_brought before the maturity of the paper sued onj from which it follows that the court erred in setting aside the writ and other proceedings in ganrnishment on the ground that the debt was not due.
Partnership) Authority. — A general authority to one partner, on dissolution, to settle the business of the firm, does not authorize him to give a note in the firm name to settle__ a fa debt, or to review one given bejore dissoliytion. _

Opinion:
Reversed and remanded.
Stay ton, Judge.