Court Opinion

ID: 9832661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:05:31.029047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:49.962392
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
If four persons in business together should enter a bank, and one of them should request the loan to them of money to be used by the company or corporation of which they are members, and he states that they are bound for it, the contract would be an express contract to repay the money, and the circumstances would not create an implied contract as -to those who were silent. Their spokesman would be representing them, and would bind them as he was bound. The appellees in this cause, if bound at all, are bound by an express contract.
The cases of Krohn v. Heyn, 77 Tex. 319, 14 S. W. 130, and Moore v. Kennedy, 81 Tex. 144, 16 S. W. 740, cited by appellees, have no applicability to the facts of this case. This court fully recognizes the elementary principle that the allegations and proof must correspond, and that, if an express contract is alleged, it must be proved. That is all that is held in the two cases cited.
In each of the petitions an express contract upon the part of the appellees to repay the borrowed money was alleged, and the question of limitations does not arise in the case.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.