Bayle v. Norris
Citation | 134 S.W. 767 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Decision Date | 02 February 1911 |
Parties | BAYLE et al. v. NORRIS et al.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; W. P. Hamlen, Judge.
Action by Joseph Bayle and others against W. H. Norris, receiver, and others. From a judgment for insufficient relief plaintiffs appealed, and defendants assigned cross-errors. Reversed and rendered in part; reformed and affirmed in part.
W. D. Gordon, for appellants. Spotts & Matthews, for appellees.
Joseph Bayle and his co-plaintiffs brought this suit against W. H. Norris, receiver of the Tyler County Land & Lumber Company, to recover damages in the sum of $35,000, alleged to have been sustained by them by reason of the defendant having unlawfully cut and removed from land alleged to belong to plaintiffs 5,000,000 feet of pine timber, which they alleged he manufactured into lumber and appropriated to his own use, the sum so sought to be recovered being the value of the timber after it was manufactured into lumber.
Plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners in fee simple of the land from which the timber was taken and describe the same in their petition by the following field notes:
The defendant filed an answer to the suit vouching in certain warrantors, alleging that he, as receiver, had purchased the timber from these warrantors on the specific tracts, which he described in his answer. He set up that these warrantors had conveyed him the timber and that they had a right to do so, having acquired title to the lands by adverse possession, and he pleaded their limitation titles in defense of the plaintiffs' suit, and in the alternative for judgment against the warrantors for the value of the timber conveyed to him by the deeds of the settlers. He also set up that, as receiver of the said Lumber Company, and of the Railway Company, which really was the tram used by and in connection with the Lumber Company, it was impossible for him to give his personal attention to the purchase of all the timber necessary to the operation of the mill in his charge, and that he had employed careful agents, who made the purchases and upon whose judgment in making the same, he was compelled to rely and did rely. He alleged that these agents made diligent inquiry as to the nature of the title from those from whom they purchased and believed and so reported to the defendant that good titles to the timber purchased were acquired by the purchases set out in the answer, and that, so believing, he caused the timber to be cut for use in the mill, in good faith, and hence, that if plaintiffs were entitled to recover anything they should recover only the value of the trees.
The warrantors brought in by the receiver were B. W. Wiggins, from whom defendant alleged he had purchased the timber on two tracts of 160 acres each, and who answered by general denial and plea of not guilty; J. C. Salter, A. D. Salter, J. G. Masterson, and W. C. Stockley, from whom defendant alleged he had purchased the timber on a tract of 152 acres, who did not answer, but suffered judgment by default; J. M. Mullins and wife, and Mrs. E. Mullins, who answered by general denial and pleas of not guilty. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiffs against defendant Norris for $1,205.91, being the value of the timber taken from the most western of the tracts conveyed by B. W. Wiggins to defendant and for the value of the timber sold to defendant by the Salters, Masterson, and Stockley, and denied plaintiffs a recovery for the value of the timber as manufactured into lumber, and also denied them a recovery for the value of the timber sold defendant by Wiggins on the other tract of 160 acres, and for the value of that sold to him by J. M. Mullins and wife and Mrs. E. Mullins, or for any other timber taken from the land. Judgment was also rendered for defendant over against B. W. Wiggins and the Salters, Masterson and Stockley on their covenants of warranty. From the judgment, the plaintiffs appeal, and the receiver, Norris, filed cross-assignments of error.
The trial judge upon proper request filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hintz v. Wagner
... ... of fact by the trial court are conclusive on appeal. Decen ... Dig. Appeal & Error, 1008; Warren v. Nix, 97 Ark ... 374, 135 S.W. 896; Bayle v. Morris, Tex. Civ. App. , 134 S.W ... If ... there is any legal evidence touching the issues decided, the ... findings of the ... ...
-
Halsey v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
...Civ. App.) 107 S. W. 952, 956; Morrison v. Bennette (Tex. Civ. App.) 228 S. W. 307; Whitehead v. Foley, 28 Tex. 1, 15; Bayle v. Norris (Tex. Civ. App.) 134 S. W. 767, 774 (writ refused); Beasley v. Howell, 117 Ala. 499, 22 So. 989; Robinson v. Nordman, 75 Ark. 593, 88 S. W. 592; Burns v. Cu......
- Newburger Cotton Co. v. Stevens
-
Cummer-Graham Co. v. Maddox
...Texas courts seem to be uniform in respect to this rule. Petit v. Frothingham, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 105, 106 S.W. 907, no writ; Bayle v. Norris, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W. 767, writ ref., and De Witz v. Saner-Whiteman Lumber Co., Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W. In White v. Smyth, 147 Tex. 272, 214 S.W.2d 967......