Lindsay v. Price

Citations

• 33 Tex. 280

Syllabus

<p>1. The payee of a note for about $1000 on W., put it in the hands of attorneys for collection, and afterwards gave to P- an order directing the attorneys to pay to him $500, “ out of the money collected or to be collected on the note.” The attorneys accepted the order, “ to be paid out of the first money collected on the note.” Their client,the payee, '• afterwards compromised with W., and instructed the .attorneys to cancel the note, so they never collected anything on it. P. sued the attorneys on the order and their acceptance. He’d, that the order cannot he regarded as a bill of exchange, nor as an assignment pro ionio of the note. It was a mere mandate, revolcable by the maker at it at any time before it was executed, and without the consent of the attorneys, notwithstanding their conditional acceptance of it; and when revoked by the maker, the attorneys could not, either as trustees or otherwise, be held liable to P., the holder of the order. (Kinney v. Lee, 10 Texas, 135, cited and approved.)</p> <p>2. Notes and bills of exchange cannot.be assigned in parts.</p> <p>3. An appeal bond need not be signed by the appellant. All the obligations stipulated in the bond are incumbent on him, independent of the bond. It is, therefore, no objection to an appeal bond that the appellant’s name was signed to it by another person, who assumed to sign it under a defective power of attorney.</p>