Aransas Pass Land Co. v. Hanaford

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Garrett
• Citation: Aransas Pass Land Co. v. Hanaford, 23 S.W. 566, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 286 (Tex. App. 1893)
• Decision Date: 19 October 1893
• Parties: ARANSAS PASS LAND CO. v. HANAFORD et al.

23 S.W. 566

ARANSAS PASS LAND CO. v. HANAFORD et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

October 19, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Aransas county; James C. Wilson, Judge.

Action by Mrs. J. M. Hanaford and her son against the Aransas Pass Land Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

M. J. Hathaway and R. W. Stayton, for appellant. Willie & Ballinger, for appellees.

GARRETT, C. J.

This suit was brought by the appellees, Mrs. J. M. Hanaford and her son, J. S. Hanaford, to recover of the Aransas Pass Land Company a balance alleged to be due them on account for their services in managing and running a hotel for the defendant for one year commencing April 1, 1889; also for certain moneys expended by them for which it was alleged the defendant was liable, and for damages, actual and exemplary, on account of the refusal of the defendant to extend the contract with them for the management of said hotel, and for maliciously and violently ejecting plaintiffs therefrom. The contract entered into between the plaintiff's and defendant purported to be a lease by the defendant to the plaintiffs of Aransas Hotel in the town of Rockport, and the block of ground upon which it is situated, for the time and upon the conditions stated therein. It is in writing, and the effect of it is that the defendant should furnish the hotel, and become responsible for all necessary expenses to be incurred in running it; and plaintiffs should manage, advertise, and run it for one year from April 1, 1889, assisted by the sister and another son of Mrs. Hanaford, and, with the assistance mentioned, to give their time and attention to an economical, careful, and proper conduct of said hotel, and render monthly statements to the defendant's secretary of expenses paid and moneys received, and for their services to receive 25 per cent. of the profits, or, if there were no profits, or the profits did not amount to so much, $100 per month; the hotel to be open and ready for business by May 1, 1889. There is also this stipulation in the contract: "Parties of the second part, Mrs. J. M. Hanaford and son, are to have the refusal of a lease on said hotel for the term of three years, at price and upon conditions then to be agreed upon." Shortly before the expiration of the year the defendant leased the hotel to one Westbrook, and demanded of plaintiffs possession thereof at the end of the year. At its February term, 1891, upon motion of the parties, the court appointed J. M. Hoopes auditor to audit the accounts between plaintiffs and defendant, and make report thereof to the next term of the court, after giving 10 days' notice of the time and place to the parties where and when he would audit their respective claims, and continued the case. The auditor filed a statement of the accounts between the parties on September 9, 1891, sworn to as required by the statute. There were no objections to the report filed by either party, and the case was tried by a jury on September 14, 1891, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs for the balance due on salary, the several items of expenditure which plaintiffs alleged they had made, the sum of $1,000 actual damages and $1,000 exemplary damages, but plaintiffs entered in the court below a remitter of the amount found by the jury as exemplary damages on the day the ...