Bridgewater v. Hooks
Decision Date | 25 June 1913 |
Citation | 159 S.W. 1004 |
Parties | BRIDGEWATER v. HOOKS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hardin County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Action by Bob Bridgewater against H. A. Hooks, administrator, and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
Jas. A. Harrison, of Beaumont, J. L. Manry and S. H. German, both of Livingston, and Ralph Durham and W. D. Gordon, both of Beaumont, for appellant. Singleton & Nall, of Kountze, and Smith, Crawford & Sonfield, of Beaumont, for appellees.
This suit was brought by the appellant against the appellee H. A. Hooks, administrator of the estate of Jno. W. Davis, deceased, and the heirs at law of said Davis, to recover all of the property of said estate. The material allegations of the petition are as follows: It is further alleged that appellee H. A. Hooks has been appointed administrator, and is in possession of the property of the estate of said Davis, and the other defendants are the heirs at law of said Davis and claim to own the property as such heirs. A list of the property as far as known to the plaintiff is set out in the petition, and plaintiff prays judgment against the defendants "enforcing said contract and agreement, and that title to all the property, both real and personal, owned by the said John W. Davis at the time of his death be vested in plaintiff, and that plaintiff have and recover of and from the defendants the title and possession to all of said property." The defendants answered by general demurrer and general denial, and specially denied that plaintiff performed his part of said alleged contract. They further pleaded "that if any such contract existed as pleaded by the plaintiff, the same was not in writing in whole or in part, and the same is in contravention of the statute of frauds of this state in that it was a contract not to be performed within one year, and it also appears that the same was for the sale and transfer of real estate or the disposition thereof, and is therefore void." The trial in the court below without a jury resulted in a judgment in favor of defendants.
We adopt as our fact conclusions the following findings of fact, which were filed by the trial judge at the request of appellant:
Appellees filed in the court below an exception to the finding of the court that the contract alleged by plaintiff was substantially complied with, and, by cross-assignments presented in this court, attack said finding on the ground that the evidence fails to show such substantial compliance with the contract, but, on the contrary establishes that the alleged contract was not performed by him, and said finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong.
Another cross-assignment presented by appellees attacks the finding that the plaintiff always gave the deceased the affection and obedience that a son usually gives a father, on the ground that said finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and another assails, as against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, the finding that the execution of the alleged contract between plaintiff's father and the deceased was fully established by the evidence.
Appellees having only excepted in the court below to the finding that plaintiff had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hardwicke v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 1482.
...v. Odessa Building & Finance Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 27 S.W.(2d) 144; Whitis v. Penry (Tex.Civ.App.) 41 S.W.(2d) 736; Bridgewater v. Hooks (Tex.Civ. App.) 159 S.W. 1004; Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Finegold (Tex.Civ.App.) 183 S.W. 833; Smith v. Ernest, 46 Tex.Civ. App. 247, 102 S.W. 129; Gibbs v. E......
-
Live Oak County v. Lower Nueces River Water Supply Dist.
...95 A.L.R.2d 1029 (Fla.App., 1960); 20 Am.Jur.2d, Courts § 71, p. 435; 21 C.J.S. Courts § 223, p. 415. Cf. Bridgewater v. Hooks, 159 S.W. 1004, 1009 (Galveston, Tex.Civ.App., 1913), reversed: 111 Tex. 122, 229 S.W. 1114 III. The Attack upon the Order of the Commissioners Court Accepting as t......
-
Coleman Hotel Co. v. Crawford
...is it essential to the validity of such contract that the same be accepted by the party for whose benefit it was made. Bridgewater v. Hooks (Tex. Civ. App.) 159 S. W. 1004; Beattie Mfg. Co. v. Clark, 208 Mo. 89, 106 S. W. 29; Crone v. Stinde, 156 Mo. 262, 55 S. W. 863, 56 S. W. 907; 13 C. J......
-
Waggoner v. Herring-Showers Lumber Co.
...v. Western National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 145 S. W. 722; Hay v. Behrens Drug Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 940; Bridgewater v. Hooks (Tex. Civ. App.) 159 S. W. 1004; Beitel v. Dobbins (Tex. Civ. App.) 44 S. W. 299; Gay v. Pemberton (Tex. Civ. App.) 44 S. W. 400; Mathonican v. Scott, 87 Tex......