Mayfield v. Cotton

Citations

• 37 Tex. 229

Syllabus

<p>1. M. and 0. being partners, and as such involved in debt, M., on the 2d of June, 1870, conveyed certain lands to G., by a deed absolute in form, and purporting a present cash consideration. Two days afterwards, C. executed an instrument obligating himself, after payment of all debts against the firm, to secure to M.'s wife all property conveyed by M. to him, or so much thereof as should be left after payment of the debts. C. subsequently sold the lands to B., and M. and wife sue C. and B. for the lands. Held, that if M.’s conveyance was for the purpose of discharging the firm debts, C. was bound to apply the property to that purpose alone ; and if C. sold the entire property to B. for the purpose of paying those debts, although a portion of the property would have sufficed, and there was no collusion or fraud imputable to B., then B. acquired a good title. But if C. sold the property after the firm debts had been paid, or for any other purpose than the payment of them, and B. bought it with notice of the equities of M/s wife, then the latter has the same rights against B. as she had against C.</p> <p>2. A discretion pertains to the District Courts, to prevent counsel from unnecessarily consuming time in discussing law authorities in the progress of the trial. No inflexible rule can be laid down on this subject; it must be regulated by the courtesy always due from the bench to the bar, and by the frequent necessity that the former shall avail itself of all sources of information.</p> <p>3. A conversation between two defendants, in the absence of the plaintiffs, was not competent evidence against the plaintiffs,</p>