White v. Tudor

Citations

• 32 Tex. 758

Syllabus

<p>“T—Whii». Loing suect on a note purporting to have been made by White1 & Co., a firm of which he had been a member, denied the execution of the note by a sworn plea of non est factum. It was proved that, after the dissolution of the firm, the note was executed by one A., who had been a member of it, and who settled up its affairs after the dissolution; and that the consideration of the note was the building of a warehouse for the firm, .but on the individual land of White, who held the house as his indi, vidual property after the dissolution. No public notice of the dissolution was given, nor was it proved that the plaintiff knew of the dissolution when he received the note, but there was evidence that it was then generally known in the small town where all parties lived. Seld, that although the suit was on the note, and it was invalidated as evidence by the plea, yet the allegation of indebtedness in the petition was sufficient to let in other evidence to show that the consideration of the note enured to the sole benefit of White, and was furnished with his consent, whereby he became equitably liable for the amount. And held further, that undercut mixed system of law and equity, it was legitimate to render judgment against White on the equitable liability, although the suit was-founded on the note and not on the consideration of it.</p>