29:
77:
That where one party to a joint contract dies, the survivor may be sued; that the drawer and indorser of a promissory note may and should be joined in the same action if both be sued simultaneously; and that where separate actions were brought at different terms in the same court, plaintiff might be
174:
Sometime before
January 1, 1843, William H. Binge and a man named Titus entered into a contract. Binge made a promissory note, indorsed by James Blair, to pay Sampson Smith $ 300 on or before January 1, 1843. Payment was not made and Smith filed an action in
165:
may and should be joined in the same action if both be sued simultaneously; and that where separate actions were brought at different terms in the same court, plaintiff might be required to consolidate unless manifest injustice would thereby be done.
199:
or statute. Second, Jones noted that the plaintiff could bring actions against both the maker and indorser, so long as he followed the proper procedure, which he did.
297:
154:
287:
195:
delivered the opinion of the court. The contention that in a joint contract required both parties be sued was not supportable under either
202:
Jones noted that even had Smith sued Binge, Titus, and Blair separately, the judge may have joined the cases anyway to reduce costs.
211:
111:
161:
which held that where one party to a joint contract dies, the survivor may be sued; that the drawer and indorser of a
292:
28:
176:
91:
115:
218:
dissented, believing that the joinder was not permitted. They would have reversed on that ground.
103:
158:
39:
192:
180:
107:
215:
162:
99:
95:
281:
150:
196:
78:
required to consolidate unless manifest injustice would thereby be done.
179:. Binge and Blair did not appear, and they appealed from the
50:
William H. Binge & James Blair v. Sampson Smith
134:
126:
121:
87:
82:
71:
63:
55:
45:
35:
21:
67:Dallam 616 (1844); 1844 WL 3886 (Tex.Rep.Sup.)
8:
27:
18:
226:
153:616 (1844), was a case decided by the
40:Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas
7:
16:Legal case in the Republic of Texas
14:
1:
298:1844 in the Republic of Texas
288:Law of the Republic of Texas
314:
76:
26:
138:Morris, joined by Baylor
177:Red River County, Texas
236:, Dallam 616 (1844).
116:William B. Ochiltree
159:Republic of Texas
142:
141:
305:
293:1844 in case law
273:
267:
261:
255:
249:
243:
237:
231:
193:William J. Jones
181:default judgment
108:William J. Jones
104:William E. Jones
83:Court membership
31:
19:
313:
312:
308:
307:
306:
304:
303:
302:
278:
277:
276:
268:
264:
256:
252:
244:
240:
232:
228:
224:
216:R. E. B. Baylor
208:
189:
172:
163:promissory note
100:Patrick C. Jack
96:R. E. B. Baylor
17:
12:
11:
5:
311:
309:
301:
300:
295:
290:
280:
279:
275:
274:
262:
250:
238:
234:Binge v. Smith
225:
223:
220:
212:Richard Morris
207:
204:
188:
185:
171:
168:
146:Binge v. Smith
140:
139:
136:
132:
131:
128:
124:
123:
119:
118:
112:Richard Morris
89:
88:Judges sitting
85:
84:
80:
79:
74:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
46:Full case name
43:
42:
37:
33:
32:
24:
23:
22:Binge v. Smith
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
310:
299:
296:
294:
291:
289:
286:
285:
283:
271:
266:
263:
259:
254:
251:
247:
242:
239:
235:
230:
227:
221:
219:
217:
213:
205:
203:
200:
198:
194:
186:
184:
182:
178:
169:
167:
164:
160:
156:
155:Supreme Court
152:
148:
147:
137:
133:
129:
125:
122:Case opinions
120:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:John Hemphill
90:
86:
81:
75:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
41:
38:
34:
30:
25:
20:
269:
265:
257:
253:
245:
241:
233:
229:
209:
201:
190:
173:
145:
144:
143:
130:Wm. J. Jones
49:
135:Concurrence
282:Categories
222:References
197:common law
170:Background
272:, at 617.
260:, at 617.
248:, at 617.
64:Citations
187:Decision
127:Majority
210:Judges
206:Dissent
157:of the
72:Holding
56:Decided
191:Judge
151:Dallam
270:Binge
258:Binge
246:Binge
36:Court
214:and
59:1844
284::
183:.
149:,
114:,
110:,
106:,
102:,
98:,
94:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
