Guardian Trust Co. v. Bauereisen
Decision Date | 30 November 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 7201.,7201. |
Citation | 121 S.W.2d 579 |
Parties | GUARDIAN TRUST CO. v. BAUEREISEN. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
As this case comes to this court there are but two parties, R. J. Bauereisen, and Guardian Trust Company, independent executor in the will of W. T. Eldridge, deceased. Bauereisen was awarded judgment in the trial court against the executor for $40,000 damages for the breach of a contract executed by him and Eldridge. That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, its opinion being reported in 99 S.W.2d 357.
Two questions are brought forward in the application for writ of error, but we have concluded that it will be necessary to consider but one of them and our statement will be limited to such facts as are thought to throw light upon that question.
W. T. Eldridge was a man of large business affairs. The details of his business interests are not fully disclosed by the record, but it appears that he was a large stockholder in a corporation known as Sugarland Industries. That corporation had subsidiaries, among them being Texas Fig, Inc., which operated nine fig plants. Most of Eldridge's business was carried on through corporations, but he owned in his own right a majority of the stock in a corporation known as Nueces Lands Irrigation Company. He also owned some liens against the properties of that company. The Irrigation Company owned about 8,500 acres of land in Dimmit County and was subdividing, improving and selling the land in small tracts. Bauereisen, who was Eldridge's son-in-law, lived in Chicago, Illinois, and was engaged in the business of drilling water wells. He had two drilling rigs used by him in his business. During the year 1928 Eldridge took up with Bauereisen the question of employing him to come to Texas and drill some wells on the lands of the Irrigation Company. After some correspondence, followed by a personal visit by Bauereisen to Texas, two contracts were executed contemporaneously and as a part of the same transaction, one with the Irrigation Company and the other with Eldridge. Since the decision of this case turns upon the construction of these contracts, they are here copied in full.
First Contract.
Pursuant to the provisions of the contract between Bauereisen and the Irrigation Company the drilling rig and tools were removed to the premises and Bauereisen entered upon the discharge of his duties as general manager of the enterprise. He had charge of farming operations, erection of improvements, drilling and equipping wells, clearing land, purchasing supplies for the commissary, marketing the crops produced, buying implements and tools, keeping books and accounts, keeping time of employees and paying employees. His exact duties with reference to the selling of land are not made clear, but it appears that he had a sales agent in San Antonio.
In the Spring of 1929, a few months after Bauereisen became general manager of the enterprise, Eldridge transferred and assigned his stock in the Irrigation Company and his liens against its property to Sugarland Industries and Bauereisen was informed of that fact. The selling of the stock and liens was one of the contingencies provided for in Section IV of the contract between Bauereisen and Eldridge above copied. In accordance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weingarten Realty Investors v. Albertson's, Inc., Civ.A. H-98-0912.
...[of a contract] should be isolated from its setting and considered apart from the other provisions." Guardian Trust Co. v. Bauereisen, 132 Tex. 396, 121 S.W.2d 579, 583 (1938). A basic tenet of contractual construction holds that, whenever feasible, an agreement is to be interpreted in a ma......
-
Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., D-1235
......] should be isolated from its setting and considered apart from the other provisions." Guardian Trust Co. v. Bauereisen, 132 Tex. 396, 121 S.W.2d 579, 583 (1938); see also Wynnewood State Bank ......
-
Secondary Life Three LLC v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.
...... Barnett, trustee of the Ben J. Barnett and Betty L. Barnett. Life Insurance Trust was listed as the owner of the policy. ( Id. at 3.) The policy became effective on January. ... (b) A person must bring suit on the bond of an executor,. administrator, or guardian not later than four years after. the day of the death, resignation, removal, or discharge of. ...Co., 876 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Tex. 1994). (quoting Guardian Trust Co. v. Bauereisen, 132 Tex. 396, 121 S.W.2d 579, 583 (1938)). “Unless the policy. dictates otherwise, ......
-
Roland v. Flagstar Bank
...isolated from its setting and considered apart from the other provisions.'" Forbau, 876 S.W.2d at 134 (quoting Guardian Trust Co. v. Bauereisen, 121 S.W.2d 579, 583 (Tex. 1938)). "Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the Court to decide." Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. C......
-
Written Employment Contracts
...560-61 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 1983), writ denied. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the vitality of Kramer in Guardian Trust Co. v. Bauereisen , 121 S.W.2d 579, 583 (1938). Other courts have followed it as well. See Bordeleau v. Universal Weather & Aviation, Inc ., 629 S.W.2d 180, 182 (Tex. App.—W......
-
Written employment contracts
...560-61 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 1983), writ denied. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the vitality of Kramer in Guardian Trust Co. v. Bauereisen , 121 S.W.2d 579, 583 (1938). Other courts have followed it as well. See Bordeleau v. Universal Weather & Aviation, Inc ., 629 S.W.2d 180, 182 (Tex. App.—W......
-
Written Employment Contracts
...560-61 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 1983), writ denied. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the vitality of Kramer in Guardian Trust Co. v. Bauereisen , 121 S.W.2d 579, 583 (1938). Other courts have followed it as well. See Bordeleau v. Universal Weather & Aviation, Inc ., 629 S.W.2d 180, 182 (Tex. App.—W......
-
Written Employment Contracts
...560-61 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 1983), writ denied. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the vitality of Kramer in Guardian Trust Co. v. Bauereisen, 121 S.W.2d 579, 583 (1938). Other courts have followed it as well. See Bordeleau v. Universal Weather & Aviation, Inc., 629 S.W.2d 180, 182 (Tex. App.—Wac......